Bill Clinton and Unity 08?

Golden Globe and Emmy-award winning actor Michael Moriarty’s current column at Enter Stage Right includes the following:

Hillary’s husband is “putting it all together”, this bi-partisan, new, third Party called Unity 08. At last, just as Bill likes it: a one party state … and with his dream ticket of President Hillary and Vice-President Rudolph.

You can read the whole column here. This is the first I have heard of Bill Clinton being behind Unity ‘08. Is there anything to that or is Moriarty merely speculating and being provocative?

BTW, Moriarty is the presidential candidate of something called the Realists Party.

18 Responses to “Bill Clinton and Unity 08?”

  1. Chris Moore Says:

    Eric Dondero would have you believe that Moriarty was running for the LP nomination.

    As far as I can tell, Micheal Moriarty has been slowly sliding towards crazyville since leaving Law and Order. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Bill Clinton has anything at all to do with Unity 08. In fact, there has been ZERO speculation about Clinton’s involvement until that column.

  2. Fred C. Says:

    I wonder if this is all tied to Sam Waterston’s support for the project. Either way, I have to agree that Hillary w/ Giuliani as VP is a depressing prospect :(

  3. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    He’s got the wrong two schmucks – the ticket will be Bloomberg/Lieberman

  4. General Lee Says:

    Six of one, hald a dozen of the other.

  5. Mike Gillis Says:

    Didn’t Bloomberg already rule out a run for the White House?

  6. Richard Winger Says:

    If two residents of New York state were on the ticket, the presidential electors from New York couldn’t vote for both of them (US Constitution, Article II). I can’t imagine either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani moving out of New York state.

  7. Alex Hammer Says:

    Austin,

    It must be a slow reporting day for you to include this piece. I am not a Unity08 insider, but this information appears ridiculous (and the source article you use doesn’t seem professionally written, satire?). Third Party Watch has significant influence and reach in Third Party political circles nationwide, so I hope that you will be very careful (i.e. more careful). Your “reporting” on such a story, even with the disclaimer that you use, only gives it more “legs”. Now, if you have information in regard to its falseness or truth, you could put it out there (if solid) and that could be news.

  8. Otto Kerner Says:

    Richard Winger’s right … maybe Giuliani will sneak across the border in Connecticut at some point? Or maybe they’re just willng to put up with the risk of failing to elect their vice-presidential candidate?

  9. John Valianti Says:

    To Austin and Richard Winger and others:

    This Clinton/Unity08 has got to be a joke-but that does not mean we Independents should not come together and come up with a team to run for President. I suggest that folks call Senator Chuck Hagel offices to say he should run for President and run as an Independent. If the Senator runs as an Independent and picks the right running mate(Wesley Clark, Sen. Webb or even Russ Feingold)he would be viable but he must announce soon.

    If you folks want a better country and really bring the us a together make the calls to the Senator office-they are listening!

    Thank You John Valianti
    Marshfield, Ma

    Ps. Richard Winger we should talk-you can email me at John@southshoresign.com

  10. matt Says:

    I’m tossing whatever libertarian bonafides I might have been thought to posess to the wind by saying this, but I’d gladly vote for a Hagel/Webb ticket.

  11. matt Says:

    if there’s no ron paul on the ticket, of course.

  12. Lex Says:

    In 2000, two residents of Texas were on the same ticket, and the presidential electors in Texas voted for them, claiming the VP candidate lived in Wyoming, because he owned a house there, even though he lived and worked in Texas, as did the Presidential candidate.

  13. Kyle B Says:

    Cheney did move his residence to Wyoming so that the electors in Texas could vote for him

  14. Brad Winthrop Says:

    Alex,

    For the record, Austin did not include this story, I did. I will keep your suggestions in mind in my future blogging, as I do all the comments that I read. I am glad to hear that you think TPW is influential. However, I do not claim to be a journalist, investigative or otherwise. I just post items here that concern alternative party politics that interest me and that I think might interest others as well. In this case we have an editorial written by an alternative party candidate for president of the United States, claiming that Unity ‘08 is the work of the Clintons. Whether that claim is true or not, I think the claim itself is pertinent to this site. I labelled this blog entry “opinion.” When I read it I really wasn’t sure what to make of it. I too thought it might be meant as a joke, but I’m still not sure . I am not even sure whether his candidacy is a joke or not. I agree with those who do not think the piece was particularly well written. I did not write it; I am just the messenger. I have no other information that the Clintons are behind Unity ‘08, and I posted it here to see if other readers had heard of this before or think that it is possible that he is right, and also to find out other people’s opinions about Moriarty.

  15. Alex Hammer Says:

    Brad, I did not check carefully enough to see that it is was your post on the site. Many sites now have multiple contributors, including my Politics 2.0 Blog. Certainly we do not live in a perfect world. I factor in your explanation, but I still believe that a sight of any influence, all the moreso, needs to do a little legwork before such publication. Once published, what is intended in terms of how the publishing is framed and how it is received can be two different things. Although I have not seen it as far as I know to be the case in this instance, a story can spread and easily become more or different than what it is originally intended. We’ve all probably heard or participated in the example where one person tells a story to another person to another person to another, etc., by the end, if there’s any more than a very few people, the story is often unrecognizable from the beginning or at a minimum significantly changed. I do believe that Third Party Watch is a significant site, and a good site. All the more reason to, if you agree, do a little more legwork in such a case to set a good example for other sites, less developed or well known, that may look to Third Party Watch as a model.

  16. Cutty Sark Says:

    Read my lips; no new Texans.

  17. Kn@ppster Says:

    I don’t think you’ll see any serious contenders going anywhere near the Unity08 nomination. There are just too many negatives:

    1) If a candidate bails on his or her party in 2008, he or she is effectively writing off the possibility of getting that party’s nomination in 2012. This plays especially big on the Republican side, where the 2008 nomination is a losing proposition, but the campaign sets up 2012 both for the nominee and the also-rans.

    2) Most of the real contender candidates are also sitting in elected offices NOW, and they’d be begging their parties to dump them at the next primary elections for those offices if they bailed to Unity08.

    Just ain’t gonna happen.

    I also don’t see Hillary/Rudy running together under any circumstances, but a previous commenter is right—they could just pull a Cheney and have Giuliani register his “residence” elsewhere. Bush/Cheney 2000 proved that that law wouldn’t be enforced in any meaningful way (and let’s be honest, it’s kind of vestigial in any case).

  18. Chris Campbell Says:

    Dondero is a wolf in sheeps clothing, a Libertarian in name only-kinda chic for some GOPers that Occ feel like griping or looking like they are outside the pareadigm.

    BTW——

    The Constitution Party, the 3rd largest political Party in the United States of America, has for sometime been concerned with the usurpation of power by the Federal Government. We also have been concerned with the Real Id Act of 2005, a Division B of an act of the United States Congress entitled Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005).

    This Act, set to take Effect on May 11, 2008, would:
    -impose undue financial costs on the State of North Carolina
    -take from the State of North Carolina powers left previously only to it, of the issuance of drivers’ licenses
    -place a citizens personal information on a card that could be used for criminal gain, with the possibility of financial and medical information. This card would be swiped through readable technology, instead of the traditional method of police interview.
    -Be used for possible checkpoints throughout the United States.
    As Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx) has said:
    This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all times of the day and night. (Ron Paul -A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform, Before the US House of Representatives, February 9, 2005)
    Therefore, we the members of the Constitution Party of North Carolina-in solidarity with the Legislature of Maine and several other states now considering similar measures, call on our elected North Carolina State Legislators to pass this resolution:
    WE, the Members of the Legislature of the State of North Carolina now assembled, most respectfully present and petition the President of the United States and the United States Congress, as follows:
    WHEREAS, the federal REAL ID Act of 2005 mandates an unfunded national driver’s license on the people of North Carolina, and;
    WHEREAS, implementation of REAL ID would cost North Carolina taxpayers approximately $200-$400 million (conservatively out of the $11 billion total cost), and;
    WHEREAS, the REAL ID national database will invite theft of identity and invasion of privacy, and;
    WHEREAS, REAL ID will impose inconveniences and higher taxes on North Carolinians with no attendant benefit such as protections from terrorism; now, therefore, be it
    RESOLVED: that North Carolina State Legislature refuses to implement the REAL ID Act and thereby protest the treatment by Congress and the President of the states as agents of the federal government; and be it further
    RESOLVED: That the North Carolina State Legislature implores the United States Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005; and be it further
    RESOLVED: That official copies of this resolution, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States; the Honorable Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; the Honorable Michael Easley, Governor of the State Of North Carolina; Richard Cheney, President of the United States Senate; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and each member of the North Carolina Congressional Delegation.

    We, the Members of the Constitution Party of North Carolina, do call upon the elected Legislators of the State of North Carolina, to pass this resolution without delay. We call on the North Carolina Legislature to pass laws interposing the power of the State of North Carolina, between her citizens and this unconstitutional attack on their liberties and welfare.

Leave a Reply