I no longer feel able to promote Unity2020

Hello everybody,
I’ve taken a few days to collect my thoughts, so hopefully this has slightly tempered my rant from being too discouraging or negative. I still see Unity as the best possible option, but my enthusiasm and ability to promote the movement have been on a decline this past week. I hope that in voicing these concerns some of you might be able to demonstrate that they’re unfounded or address them, but, if not, maybe this message will serve as an outlet for anyone else sharing similar concerns.

  1. We still don’t have tangible candidates that we can promote. My thoughts with our election were, regardless of the outcome and glitches in the process, we’ll finally be able to move forward. Now we’ve selected our two, but we’re still waiting to move forward until there’s a groundswell. Even though I’ve assured friends that there’s no harm in supporting the concept of this movement, they’re reluctant to entertain the idea without knowing who they’re signing up to support. It might be Tulsi and Dan, but no one really knows and we’re waiting to even ask them until a substantial number of people are willing to show support in hopes it might be those two. I think people would rally in huge numbers if we had someone step up and say “I’m willing to take a stand”, but we’re not even giving candidates an option to do that and campaign for the movement. Instead we’re comfortably staying at this impasse of, “we need to get a groundswell to get candidates”, without acknowledging we need candidates to get a groundswell.
    Has anyone bothered to ask what Tulsi and Dan require to sign on? Maybe their requirements are much different than what we’ve assumed. They might love nothing more than to run on this platform and just need to be asked. They might say, “I’ll do it, but here are my terms”, and those might have nothing to do with a groundswell. Through their military careers they’ve both displayed a willingness to sacrifice so much for their countries, even their lives. Why are we assuming they’re not courageous enough to take a risk with their political careers for the sake of saving our country?

  2. This may have been discussed in other topics, but I’m a bit baffled by the voting and implications. Ticket 1 is Dan & Tulsi, then ticket 2 is Yang and McRaven. So, if Dan excepts and Tulsi declines, or vice versa, does it automatically pass to Yang and McRaven? This is somewhat beside my point in this post, but I think it would have made much more sense to rank the three left-leaning choices and rank the right-leaning choices separately. I don’t think many people were thinking, “Jesse would be great with Mcraven, but a terrible fit for Jocko” leading up to voting day. I assume most people were thinking, “This is my top pick for the left, this is my top pick for the right” then did their best to rank them with their top picks toward the top. Ranked voting is great, but I think the process of pairing candidates in this made it difficult for voters to effectively communicate their preference.

  3. I think Dan Crenshaw is absolutely wrong for the Unity ticket, and a dealbreaker for a significant number of people who might have otherwise considered Unity. I sincerely hope he proves me wrong (And accepting the draft would go a LONG way in proving me wrong), but I find having him as a candidate throws the integrity of the ticket out the window. I’ve listened to numerous podcasts, and what comes through is how critical he is of almost everything to do with the left, and how blind he is to any hint of corruption or wrong-doing on the right. I believe the only thing he conceded in the campfire episode was that Republicans are poor communicators and that must be why not everyone subscribes to their superior ideas.
    Dan is a great guy. He’s young, charismatic, and a zealot for the Republican Party. These are great qualities, but why would we expect him to be an answer from the problems in our parties when he’s oblivious to his party’s share of those problems?
    Compare Tulsi to Dan. I haven’t listened to Tulsi nearly as extensively, but when I hear her speak she is remarkably insightful of the shortcomings in our government across both parties. By most people’s criteria, she barely qualifies as a democrat, and some even accuse her of being Republican. They’re not sure how to place her, but her good-nature, good-will, confidence, and seeming incorruptibility make it entirely insignificant to confine her to a side. She represents great qualities from both sides, while Dan represents great qualities from one side. I can promote Tulsi to Democrats and Republicans alike with the confidence that anyone and everyone can get behind this candidate because her message resonates with Americans on every and any side.
    I find I’m unable to promote Dan with any enthusiasm, and hopelessly unable to do so to anyone left-leaning. If someone is considering voting Democrat, is a dynamic non-partisan candidate paired with a staunch, status-quo Republican going to seem a better option? Maybe, but I’m at a loss of how to field that argument. I can say that Dan isn’t Trump, but so can anyone. Any progress I make might be lost when they listen to one of Dan’s podcasts or google him and stumble upon articles of his Dan’s typical Republican talking points, even going so far as spreading Covid misinformation. They might applaud him for being well-spoken, but this is not a candidate for Unity.
    I don’t see anything unique about Dan that separates him from the politicians that have lead us into this divided mess in the first place. Jesse Ventura pointed out that politicians tend to put their party’s intentions first. Dan seems to embody that, while Tulsi and other candidates give the impression that they would put the American people before their party (if they even have a party). Dan is extremely critical of democrats, which could be fair and possibly insightful if it weren’t so one-sided and blatantly steeped in bias.
    I keep listening to more episodes of his podcasts and other interviews in hopes that I’ll see those open-minded, non-partisan qualities people have convinced themselves he possesses, but all I find is more conviction that he is perfect for the Republican Party but entirely wrong for Unity. With the potential of having Dan on the ticket, the foundation of the Unity movement risks being jeopardized. We might become a “lesser of three evils” ticket. All evidence I’ve encountered in listening to his own words suggest he’s just more of what we’ve been dealing with up to this point. Can anyone point me to specific podcasts or examples of Dan transcending the Democrat/Republican divide in a compelling way?

To conclude, I do still view the Unity movement as the best course, but I’m finding my enthusiasm to be losing out to my frustration. I will still support the movement personally, but these concerns of mine have crippled my ability to tell every single person I encounter that they need to get behind this.


Thank you for this thoughtful assessment. I have similar feelings, especially concerning Crenshaw. I find you have done an excellent job of defining both Gabbard and Crenshaw with respect to their political integrity. My efforts over the next years will be to work towards a progressive platform and a candidate that will fight for such a platform … Nina Turner perhaps? This is something I can feel passion for, whereas I know I will find no such passion promoting Dan Crenshaw.

1 Like

@Casdool I felt the same way about Crenshaw, and stopped watching his Campfire with Brett after 36 minutes as I posted on his candidate thread. However, after he was drafted I watched the remainder of Brett’s Campfire. Crenshaw mentions Medical Insurance Subscriptions as an alternative to M4A. I am familiar with the Subscription concept, as it was recommended to me by a friend of my daughter who is the daughter of a health care worker.

Think of Crenshaw as representing market solutions, and Tulsi as representing government solutions. Then the pair makes sense. You should use that frame of reference in trying to convince others.


Thank you for the response, Tron! I did listen to that entire episode and have heard him speak on his healthcare proposal before. A lot of his assessment seemed interesting, but he seemed to misdiagnose some aspects. As a result, I’m not sure the answers he was offering were a solution to the actual problems. I was glad for many of the aspects he was taking into consideration (which is something I don’t see in other solutions that are flippantly tossed around), but I found him to be overall very naive in regards to this particular issue. I’m not convinced that Crenshaw is a go-to person for market solutions, but I would love to hear more examples of his ideas or successes he’s had in Texas.

Apart from his thoughts on healthcare, I do feel like having Crenshaw on the ticket makes us hypocrites to some degree. This is an extreme exaggeration, but it’s as if we’re saying “We’re tired of the duopoly and corruption in the parties, so we’ve decided to draft two center candidates who don’t engage in those petty games: Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.” The movement would immediately lose credibility. Crenshaw is a far cry from those politicians, but he is obviously and unabashedly cut from the same cloth. As long as Crenshaw is the top pick for our draft, I think we’re possibly hypocrites with limited credibility. He could have a great chance of winning, but the purpose and integrity of the Unity movement would likely be lost with him. He seems to belong firmly within the confines of the Republican Party, and we need to promote people who aren’t so entrenched in the duopoly.

This isn’t to bash Crenshaw. He is a fantastic Republican. He’s very popular among republicans, well-spoken, young, charismatic, respectful, etc. It’s easy to see why he rose to the top of the vote, but I think he’s entirely wrong for Unity as far as what I’ve understood it to represent. He could be a sensational republican presidential candidate someday.


I totally agree about Crenshaw. He doesn’t believe there’s any real issue with corruption in politics, and this alone should be disqualifying, as it runs opposite to the spirit of Unity. If corruption is actually not an issue, or even only a minor one, this entire project is a pointless exercise.

That being said, being paired with someone like Tulsi could temper his skepticism in this area and create some balance. Whether that’s enough is another matter.

1 Like

I’m hoping, if it gets to the point that Dan runs, that he will prove me wrong. It’s possible! I do have a lot of enthusiasm for Tulsi.

I was just thinking, our situation would be like, hypothetically, if the Libertarian Party were to draft Bernie Sanders to run on their ticket. Bernie has a lot of great qualities, but he seems to in no way represent libertarian values. He has a huge following, and drafting him could be the best chance the Libertarians ever had to win the election. But, would the party have any credibility? “We fight for limited government and free-markets, that’s why we want Bernie Sanders for president.” People would recognize the dissonance and hypocrisy immediately.

From my perspective, this is exactly the sort of thing I think we risk with Crenshaw. It’s obvious to me that he’s in direct conflict with our values. I’m not sure whether it’s obvious to most people, or if he’s so popular/well-liked they’re trying to ignore that, or if something else is going on.