I was involved in the now disbanded Unity08 movement, and I have to tell you that I am very disappointed about it. Things seemed to have been progressing well with the site. Forum discussion was lively. Although I admit that I was disappointed in the lack of originality in would-be candidates (members seemed determined to nominate second string losers from Republican/ Democrat primaries), I did not mind discussing the pros and cons of crazy bipartisan tickets. Barack Obama with Ron Paul as veep comes to mind. Also Chuck Norris with Mike Huckabee and Stephen Colbert with, well, anyone. The premise was great. An end to bipartisan Congressional Administrative lock down with the people choosing the people's candidate for the highest position of the land.

So what happened?

Despite all the fundraising, press coverage, and membership drives the site was disbanded. I believe the tally was at over 250000 members and over 250000 dollars when I logged on for the last time. With that kind of support, why close up shop?

I heard about Unity.com through the Jim Bohannan radio show. In an interview with Doug Bailey, one of Unity's founders, the talk show host asked the seasoned politician if he were prepared to continue Unity past the 2008 election cycle. Would he continue if the party did not meet his support goal. The uneasy reply he gave made me wonder.

Obviously the site was costing them money. It takes hundreds of people to promote a serious political party to garner enough support to nominate and back a campaign for the Presidency. And then there were the state ballots. To have a candidate be on the ballot for all 50 states is not at all an easy task. Different time tables, admission requirements, and deadlines exist for all of them.

In the farewell letter from the Unity08 board of directors, members were told that, evidently, a political party could not really contend without a person to support from the onset. Also, New York's Mayor Bloomberg (one of Unity's discussed candidates) was discussing a run on his own ticket, and two independent candidates would not work.

I think a third party coalition of members of both majors and all other third parties can succeed. The problem is in the scale. Why build a "grassroots" movement to shoot for the highest office in the land? Would not a truly grassroots movement be built from the ground up filling local and Congressional seats, signing petitions and raising funds?

The unique and effective function of the third party is to amplify the voice of the people. And sometimes, every great while, Washington will listen.