Working Families of America Political Action Committee

Sent out to all the right people over there (and copied to much of the American media) last night:

My friends in the United States, although strongly supportive in principle, believe that what I am about to outline to you cannot be done there, even though I am in the process of doing something very like it here in the United Kingdom. I am convinced that they are wrong, and will be handing over this project to them as soon as you and I have proved this.

Anyway, this project is the Working Families of America Political Action Committee (WFA-PAC), which itself would be strictly independent, but which would support candidates who subscribed to at least six (including the top three) of the top 10 economic and budgetary policy priorities determined by the unions affiliated to either or both of the AFL-CIO and Change To Win (hence "Working"), of the top 10 social and cultural policy priorities determined by the individuals who were also members of the Board of Advisors of the Alliance for Marriage (hence "Families"), and of the top 10 foreign and defense policy priorities determined by The American Cause (hence "of America"). I repeat that it would be strictly independent.

Unions, you might think that you do not like the people who serve as advisors to the Alliance for Marriage (that remarkable example of inter-racial cooperation, so closely linked to the Civil Rights Movement through the black churches, and so forthright and articulate in attacking the effects of unbridled capitalism on family life), and you might think that you do not like paleoconservatives (anti-GATT, anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA, anti-war, ferociously opposed to the undercutting of American workers through the turning of a blind eye to illegal immigration). Supporters of the Alliance for Marriage, some of you might think that you do not like the unions, and perhaps that you do not like the paleoconservatives too much, either. And paleoconservatives, you might think that you have grave cause to distrust both the unions and the neoconservative network sometimes so close to the Alliance for Marriage.

But I ask you, as I am so often asking your British counterparts, do you want ANY of the unions' economic and budgetary policy priorities to be addressed (I mean in an effective, practical way not characteristic of the Democratic Party in these days before the WFA-PAC)? Do you want ANY of the churches' social and cultural policy priorities to be addressed (I mean in an effective, practical way not characteristic of the Republican Party in these days before the WFA-PAC)? Or do you want ANY paleoconservative foreign and defense policy priorities, often also so resonant on the Left, to be addressed (I mean in an effective, practical way not characteristic of either party in these days before the WFA-PAC)? Politics is of course about cooperation, coalition, and sometimes even compromise.

Is there any good reason why, even if not one red cent were involved, there could not be at least a candidate endorsed by the WFA-PAC (i.e., identified by email to supporters for circulation in unions, or churches, or whatever) for every seat in the House in 2008, as well as for every Senate seat being fought, and for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States?

As stated above, this will be handed over to American leadership as soon as I have proved to the Americans in question that there is potential here. So do please get in touch: davidaslindsay@hotmail.com