What are Unity08’s chances? Nunn

Apparently, former Sen. Sam Nunn, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who voluntarily left politics more than a decade ago, is eyeing a return to the national stage. Maybe he’s hoping to join a Democratic president’s cabinet? Perhaps he thinks he can position himself as a credible running mate? No, Nunn is apparently chatting with Unity08.

“It’s a possibility, not a probability,” said Nunn, now the head of a nonprofit organization out to reduce the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry. “My own thinking is, it may be a time for the country to say, ‘Timeout. The two-party system has served us well, historically, but it’s not serving us now.'”

The 68-year-old former senator, still considered one of the foremost experts on national security, confirmed that he’s discussed a presidential run as part of several conversations with Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor.

More important, Nunn said he’s been in touch with Unity ’08, a group with a goal of fielding a bipartisan or independent ticket for president. Initial talks began with Hamilton Jordan, a co-founder of Unity ’08 and former chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter.

Doug Bailey, a Republican strategist and another co-founder, said Nunn was given “a more detailed briefing” from the group this summer.

Assuming Nunn is serious about this — and given his style, I doubt he’d be talking about this publicly if he weren’t serious — it has the potential to at least raise a few eyebrows. I can’t imagine a scenario in which Nunn seriously competes for the presidency, which would make his campaign a bit of a fool’s errand, but there’s one point in particular that we should keep in mind: if Nunn moves forward with this, the media will swoon.

It doesn’t matter of Nunn has no support, or if Unity08 is a publicity stunt gone awry, or if his rationale for running is shallow. What matters is David Broder and those who share his mindset will praise Nunn’s campaign as the greatest political development of the modern era. He’s thumbing his nose at the major parties! He’s a conservative Dem who’s “tough” on defense! He’s running as an exercise in patriotism!

It will be shameless and nauseating. Count on it.

As for the substance of a Nunn campaign, I’m mystified by the rationale.

[T]he Georgia Democrat, who made his name nationally as a defense-minded hawk, has watched what’s happened to the country, and he’s more than a bit ticked — at the “fiasco” in Iraq, a federal budget spinning out of control, the lack of an honest energy policy, and a presidential contest that, he says, seems designed to thwart serious discussion of the looming crises…. Though he has said little publicly, his frustration over Iraq — he opposed the first Gulf War in ’91 — can barely be contained. “A fiasco, which we’ve basically mishandled in all directions.

In other words, Nunn is bothered by the Bush presidency and the administration’s many failures. Join the club, Sam. Indeed, that description of Nunn’s frustrations could have just as easily been attributed to any of the major Democratic candidates.

As publius noted, “Given that all of the problems Nunn identified can be traced quite directly to Republican political control over the past 8 years, you might think Nunn would try to reclaim his Senate seat. No such luck.”

Indeed, Nunn already agrees with Democrats on everything he finds important, including his signature policy issue: nuclear disarmament. So why bother? To run on a third-party ticket just for the sake of doing so? It’s hardly befitting an “elder statesman.”

If Nunn really wants progress on the issues he cares about, he has an obvious course: help elect a president of his own party, challenge Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) in Georgia next year, or both.

It might be disappointing to the Broders of the world, but it’s more likely to make a difference.

Post Script: And for what it’s worth, I continue to believe Unity08 is a solution in search of a problem. It’s comprised of establishment types who are railing against the establishment, creating a party based on practically nothing.

Plus, every vote UhOh8 gets comes off the Dem pile – the remaining repub voters can hardly be seen as favouring bipartisanship, to be polite about it – so it’s easier to see this as an anti-Democrat move than a truly nonpartisan one.

  • Whoa…a bipartisan ticket? Is that the same as an independant ticket? What’s the freakin’ difference anymore.

    I fail to see any difference between the two parties. The two party system has not served us well, because neither is an “opposition” party when the other holds power. Ok, that’s not true, the Republican Congresses of the 90’s were opposed to everything that Clinton did, but they were not a “loyal” opposition. There is an interesting site called politicalcompass.org. Rather than defining political positioning with the simple–and tired–formula of left/right, these good folks have involved the Y, as well as the X, axis. You answer six pages of multiple choice questions to find your position: left/right/libertarian/authoritarian. Using the statements of all the presidential candidates, the site plotted them…guess what? They all came out well to the right and well towards authoritarian.

    Mr. Nunn is too late. What we need now is a second party, because this one party system shit sucks.

  • Unity08 doesn’t strike me as a movement so much as disenfranchised, moderate repubs trying to reclaim their influence. Just as Nunn should stick with the Dems, Unity08’s fight should be with the radicals who’ve hijacked the republican party.

  • The effort will also get a lot of covert Republican support if Unity08 runs a Democrat as its presidential candidate. The political landscape at the moment is such that the Republican’s best hope is another Nader that allows their candidate to slip through.

    Also, no one should forget Nunn’s major role in torpedoing Clinton’s opening days in the White House. After Clinton was inaugurated, one of his first goals was to fufill a campaign promise to end the military’s ban on gays — something he could do by executive order. Nunn promptly led a blocking action by conservatives in a then solidly Democratic Congress that gave the country the disasterous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and ended the traditional “honeymoon” period new presidents have in which they get many of the things they campaigned on done. Clinton’s presidency never fully recovered, especially since Nunn’s (and other conservative Dem’s) actions helped set the stage for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

  • Has someone asked Nunn what’s so terribly wrong with the leading Democratic contenders, or what he thinks the prospects are for finding a strong Republican candidate who actually opposed their party’s romp through the insane asylum?

    You’re right, Steve. The Brodermedia will love this to death.

  • This notion that there isn’t any difference between the parties is just ridiculous, and I don’t know how anyone can look at the platforms of the two parties and not see, in pretty stark terms, that there are tons of differences.

    Yes, there are a lot of single-issue voters – people who would vote for Chuck Hagel, for example, because of his opposition to the war, but who would dismiss the fact that on every other issue, he is a solidly conservative Republican. Someone who was in favor of a woman’s right to reproductive freedom, who was also opposed to the war, would NOT vote for Chuck Hagel because he opposes the right to choose.

    Republicans and Democrats are not two sides of the same coin; they are not two varieties of apple. They are nickels and dimes, apples and oranges – maybe we’d like to also be able to spend quarters and pennies and half-dollars, and eat bananas and peaches, if what people want is more choice, and more variety, but saying there’s no differences is just silly.

  • elephantrider said:
    What we need now is a second party, because this one party system shit sucks.

    Wow. What an original and positive statement. We’re all just a different shade of capitalist criminal around here I guess.

    Yeah, one party system. According to elephantrider, the Republican and Democratic presidential contenders are all in lockstep re the most important issues of our time:

    National Healthcare
    Ending the Iraq Invasion
    Gay rights
    Building on advances in civil rights
    Women’s rights
    Addressing global climate change
    Environmental protection
    Energy policy
    Judicial appointments, especially for Supreme Court

    I could go on and on.

    Say, if you want and support a third party (we all remember how well that worked in 2000), I say on behalf of all lifelong Democratic progressives without too much fear of contradiction: Don’t let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. We’ll still be here toasting the election of one of the best crops of Democratic contenders in memory.

  • He’s trying to pull a Lieberman at the national level. Lieberman’s success depended on the Republican nominee being abandoned by all of the Republicans, so that the addition of some moderate Democrats and Independents could win the day over standard democrats alone. I can perhaps see his bid working against Hillary, because the Republicans clearly aren’t in love with any of their candidates. However, his support from Democrats is likely to be far below Lieberman’s. How clueless are the Independents these days, or are even they finally burned out by anything that approaches Republicanism?

  • I’m disappointed; I thought Nunn was smarter than that. Given the “problems” he identifies that cry out for him to be the solution, he surely sees that running and splitting Democratic votes only ensures the Republican party — you know, the ones who gave us those problems — will win and the problems will continue to get worse. The “Unity” needed in 08 to change things is unity behind Democratic candidates so we can clean the neoconmen out of positions of influence.

    The whole “two party system is broken” thing is at some level attractive, but this hardly seems the year for it. I just saw a poll this week that showed an astoundingly high 60% or so of Dems are pleased with their choices (better still, something like 20% of R’s were pleased with theirs). Find a year when both parties have majorities who dislike their options (which frankly seems to be the case in most presidential nominating cycles) — thats when a third-party seems necessary.

  • Bloomberg / Nunn?
    Ostensibly bipartisan and well financed.

    A retired Senator might consider being the warm bucket of light beer.
    Would anyone notice it’s not Dick Cheney anymore? 😛

  • ColonPowwow has it right (# 7)

    Unfortunately, never underestimate the ability of a good 10-15% of “progressives” to demonstrate they are idiots with this “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” crap. ColonPowwow’s list demonstrates the lie perfectly.

    I have been arguing with Democrats who – since the sellout to Bush on FISA – have expressed a desire to “punish” the Democrats by withholding support. To which I say: go ahead and do that and get more Republicans, which will only guarantee that it gets worse; or vote in enough Democrats that things like that can’t be done again. So far, most of them see the logic.

    Which isn’t to say we shouldn’t keep the anger over that – just aim it in the right direction, toward The Enemy.

  • Why is it that when the Repblicans screw everything up both parties are to blame? I guess the same reason that when you have two lousy Bush Presidents and one good Clinton president that suddenly it’s too much Bush AND Clinton.

    I’m with those who want to put this Tweedle Dee Dee and Twiddle Dee Dum idea to rest. Viva la Difference.

  • Is there an underlying bigotry that prevents Nunn from seeing the forest for the trees and remaining a Democrat? Otherwise, how does a sane individual not understand the cognitive dissonance created by agreeing with someone and then doing everything you can to ensure they don’t win?

  • I noticed that no one mentioned how strong the Democratic platform is on ending American Imperialism. I guess that’s because there isn’t much difference between the two political parties in that sense.

    I noticed that no one mentioned how strong the Democratic platform is in advocating that television networks provide free air-time to petition-qualified candidates on the public property known as our airwaves. I guess that’s because there isn’t much difference between the two political parties in that sense.

    I noticed that no one mentioned how strong the Democratic platform is concerning the “unitary executive.” I guess that’s because there isn’t much difference between the two political parties in that sense.

    I noticed that no one mentioned how strong the Democratic platform is concerning the plethora of undeclared and unconstitutional “wars” throughout the 20th century, such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and countless other “conflicts.” I guess that’s because there isn’t much difference between the two political parties in that sense.

    Yes, you’d have to be crazy to think that there is a political monopoly of the Federal Government by a Corporate Military Industrial Cabal.

  • I’ve got a more reasonable scenario to offer to Sam Nunn:

    Why doesn’t he get the state of Georgia to legalize gay marriage, have Bill Clinton divorce Hillary, marry Bill, then run as the Democratic candidate for President…

    …in other words, it ain’t gonna happen Sam….

  • Weird though it is to write, I’m basically in agreement with JKap here.

    Hillary Clinton at least is perfectly comfortable with our Empire–and, even more bothersome for me, the Imperial Powers seized by the current Chimp-in-Chief. That isn’t to obscure or dismiss the very important differences between the two parties on a lot of other issues… but it does suggest to me that the ultimate difference might be nothing more than the Republicans running full-speed toward the edge of the cliff, while the Democrats are merely walking.

    To be fair, though, I’m pretty sure Sam Nunn is NOT the guy who’s going to solve this problem for us. I feel it’s much more likely that Obama, or possibly Edwards, will come to his senses and conclude that we can’t endure as an oxymoronic Imperial Republic.

  • JKap said:
    Yes, you’d have to be crazy to think that there is a political monopoly of the Federal Government by a Corporate Military Industrial Cabal.

    Of course you’re right on your points intellectually and philosophically (although I think Dennis Kucinich might be addressing them pretty well on the Democratic side). The point is – the two parties are wildly different on many (not all) of the issues we progressives have advanced to the best of our ability (that is, short of a cultural and/or violent socialist revolution) under the current system.

    What about the items I listed? No difference between the two parties?

    And even though the Dems have either caved or been lazy in the safeguarding of many of our constitutional rights, there is still some differences between the two parties on this issue. Like Kucinich in the House, Russ Feingold is a Democrat, and they speaks for others, a significant minority at least, in this party.

  • dajafi said:

    Hillary Clinton at least is perfectly comfortable with our Empire–and, even more bothersome for me, the Imperial Powers seized by the current Chimp-in-Chief.

    Wow. You’re pretty comfortable with that assertion. I wasn’t aware she had taken a policy position supporting these two issues and that Obama and Edwards had repudiated them. When did Hillary get on board with all this. I could use a reputable source or a good explanation from you.

  • Re: colonpowwow @ #17

    You know how I feel about Kucinich. He’s the man on the Democratic side. The other candidates, aside from Gravel, are largely uninspiring to me. Unfortunately for his candidacy and for us Kucinich supporters, he’s not one of the “more competitive candidates” according to the Democratic Political Solidarity Union.

    I wish the Dems would hold a straw poll –I’d be out in force showing my support for Kucinich and his message. It would make sense to hold such events, since the Dems claim to be the party of populism. Let our voices be heard.

  • colonpowwow #18:

    She doesn’t talk about this much these days, but Sen. Clinton has offered another reason for her 2002 Iraq vote: she believes the executive branch deserves great deference from Congress on questions of war and peace, a view she came to hold “when my husband was president.” I think the NYT magazine cover story from a couple months past included this, but a Google search probably will yield a lot as well. I also think she’s been conspicuous by her silence about how Bush and his Loyal Bushies have transgressed against the Constitution–though, to be fair, just about all the serious Democrats except Dodd have been mum on this.

    I admit that part of my view is based on the simple fact that Obama and (to a lesser extent) Edwards have experience in government solely as legislators, and because of this I think they can be expected to understand the value of separation of powers and checks and balances. Mrs. Clinton is a legislator too, of course, but I think her formative experience in public life was as the top advisor–mostly without portfolio–to the President. On some level, I think she sees the legislature as an irritant… understandable given the state of play in the ’90s, but scary for those of us who actually like the Constitutional setup even with its frustrations.

    As for the broader point about her dismissal of concerns about Empire, I have never heard or read anything from her about the problems inherent in the U.S. having a worldwide array of bases and military-based alliances, or running our economy substantially on the model of easy access to other countries’ resources. She’ll pay lip service to “energy indepenence,” but when the rubber hits the road I suspect she’ll just want to make sure the oil keeps flowing and that her political bases are covered.

    At best, a Clinton Restoration will give us a more competent and marginally more responsible version of the Imperial Presidency. Preferable to Bush or any of his would-be successors? Yes. But I want a lot more than that.

  • Whether this is seen as a covert moderate Republican move, or an effort to divide the Dim Dems, if he means what he says it will resonate. And rightly so. The Rethugs want a Clinton-Obama ticket, but don’t really have anyone who is slam-dunk to beat that ticket. The Dems are busy proving, again, they are Rethug-lite, and will likely field a losing ticket, despite being, in the abstract, the odds-on favorite to win.

    Nunn can be a real spoiler if he went the distance, but in the interim he could be the conscience of the Rethugocrats, and there just might be some discussion of substance, despite the opposition from the witless MSM.

  • #20 dajafi:

    Thanks for your thoughtful clarification. I did bristle a bit at you painting Hillary with a too-narrow brush on this.

    I actually think that (besides Dodd and Kucinich) none of the leading candidates have made strong opposing statements to some of these issues because they are somewhat esoteric (doesn’t mean unimportant) wouldn’t resonate with the primary voters at large, and one tends to concentrate and stay on message in today’s media. Not sexy enough, I guess I’m saying.

    I suspect though, that neither Obama, Edwards, nor Hillary would countenance anything like the abuses of the Bush Imperial Presidency, nor would they resist legislation aimed at curbing further such abuses by the executive. I know all of them would be tempted (considering Republican congress abuse of Bill) to leave some such shelters intact, but again, I don’t see them behaving in such a criminal manner that they feel entitled to cover their tracks legally, and in advance.

    Re the separation of war powers. That’s actually a tough one. It seems that congress has been loathe to exercise the powers that they have to prevent abuses (and Hillary and Edwards deserve their criticism on this), but military by consent and committee sounds ponderous. Best to elect honest leaders we can trust – and I think all the Dems fit that description – (hope this doesn’t prove to be a Pollyannaish outlook).

  • Jkap (#19) – actually the reason the Dems (at least in Iowa) do not have a straw poll is because we are populists. The straw poll is just a way to extort candidates as a form of party fundraising. You were there – you know better than most that the whole Iowa Rethug operation was bought and paid for by Oven Mitt Capital Corp. The Iowa Dem Party has long found that kind of racket untoward.

  • Comment #6***Anne*** The parties are very different…agreed…but it’s not apples and oranges, it’s more like repubs are apples/ and dems are oranges, bananas, peaches, plums blueberries and strawberries, with some dems being applesauce. Maybe that’s why the Democrats don’t have those stupid “party loyalty oaths” the Kansas republicans force on their members.
    I can see it now, the Unity party votes for a new Unitary Executive Director to make appointments to fill our unitary government. Now take your meds.

  • Comments are closed.