It's time has come and will be secured upon the conclusion of the Nov, 2006 elections, when rampant voter disgust and dissatisfaction with the choices available to both mainstream Republicans and Democrats will galvanize the need and demand for an alternative choice, a third party.
Interestingly, at a time when the Republicans should be easily voted out en masse, there is still quite amazingly in some circles, expectation they will retain if not possibly even gain in these coming elections. What does that then say about the Democratic Party? Answer If it can't win now (against a broken Republican Party), it never will, unless it changes direction in a very big way.
If one were to look at a bell curve overlay of the aggregate voting public, it's fair to say it would taper off at the extremes, with the usual 70% or so bulge in the middle. Does that then make sense that the two major party platforms emphasize their respective extremes while excluding 70% of the voting public? I don't think so. A disenchanted moderate Republican, I currently consider myself neither Republican nor Democrat. Rather, I'm in the 70% category, seemingly abandoned by their party and looking for new representation, where we have none now.
The Republicans clearly are going to continue hard right. The Democrats talk about substantively moving center but demonstrating little intestinal fortitude so far to do so, seemingly content (afraid) to not rock the far left boat. In fact, that perception will never change so long as the DNC chairman position is held by the leader of the extreme left wing of the party. That position is a signal proxy to the voters about the Party's true direction. The Republicans I'll add have the same problem.
Bottom line, the middle or bell curve "voter bulge", comprising Disenchanted Moderate Republicans ("DMR's") and Disenchanted Moderate Democrats ("DMD'S"), effectively has no representation. We want some substantively and now. And we're willing to cast historical labels aside to ally, unite, adopt and embrace a new party together. Call it either the "Progressive Moderate Party (PMP)" or "United Moderate Party (UMP)". As counter-intuitive as historically may have sounded, putting "progressive" and "moderate" together makes perfect sense now. Who would have thought that a new party would embrace both middle Democrat and Republican principles in a unified way. Indeed that's progress(ive).
So what represents the founding Progressive Moderate Party platform:
It's effectively what DMD's and DMR's want?
We want neither left nor right, but rather a "balanced middle", and a stop to the perpetual left-right pendulum swing.
In that context, let me focus on the four major DMD/DMR deciding impact themes/issues of the 2008 Presidential election in no particular order except starting with a for sure number 1: Iraq, and probably number 2: foreign policy:
1. Iraq: This will be the central driving issue of the 2008 campaign. An immediate, sensible "3 for 1 and Done" controlled withdrawal (plan), sympathetic with the liberation based theme we approved the initial invasion upon.
3. Domestic Policy: Responsible Citizen Concern and Incentive. Continue the direction initiated by the Clinton Administration as evident for example the case of welfare reform. There should be concern for all citizens, yet also the tools and incentives for not only government but most importantly for the people to help themselves. Also, some recognition that as the world economy and security become more globally integrated, domestic policy will be increasingly driven by foreign policy, and how can we best leverage that to maximize benefits for our citizens.
4. Taxes: In what I'll coin the "income clock" factor, we want the clock turned back, or at worst, held steady at 1PM. If you look at a typical 9-5 work day, from approx. 9AM-1PM we work for the government (taxes). The remainder of the day's rewards goes in our pockets. We want to spend more of the day working for our families, not Uncle Sam.