Build Your Own 2010 GOP Contract With America!

[RTFirefly]

Inspired by a couple of comments in the "Will the Repubs take the House? Senate? thread, specifically Boozahol Squid, P.I.'s interpretation of a comment by lel, essentially saying that a new Gingrich needs to step up and create a 2010 version of the Contract With America.

My comment there was that it's a pretty steep challenge "to create a GOP agenda that (a) GOP Congresscritters and Congressional candidates are willing to run on in a general election, (b) won't get the GOP base hopping mad, and (c) will draw a modicum of support from centrists/independents."

But it seemed to deserve a thread of its own, so here we are.

The ground rules are simple: what matters isn't whether you think it's a good or bad agenda, but whether you can argue that it does or doesn't meet the three criteria above.

So, sports fans, come up with your 2010 GOP Contracts With America, and be prepared to defend them on that basis. Fun for the whole family!

[Sage Rat]

Dunno. The main problem with coming up with such a thing is that clearly the answer would be to pound on Obama's failure to turn around the economy and/or the issue of the growing national debt. But, to do that they'd have to offer actual proposals for how to correct things, and then they'd be stuck with that. The proposals that the Tea Partiers want -- specifically, a balanced budget amendment -- are fairly stupid. The proposals that the Libertarians want -- a gold standard, or simply letting falling things fall -- are also pretty stupid. Obama is more-or-less doing what economic experts suggest and the politicos know that if they get into power, they'll be obligated to go with what the experts suggest. But if they write out as their Contact with America that they'll do the same thing as Obama, they can't decry everything Obama is doing.

[lel]

A detailed Contract With America 2 would have to be a major group effort built upon a coalition, but I would wholeheartedly agree with Sage Rat that to have any chance of success that the proposal would have to based primarily upon economic recovery and would have to pound on Obama's current failure to turn the economy around. Right now would be their best bet to make such a contract that would either be silent on social issues or would simply call them an issue of states' rights, thus achieving the same effect as having no opinion on such issues.

The issue is that they would have to have a proposal to fix the economy that a) works and b) differs significantly from Obama's current policy. I'm not sure I am daring enough to boldly assert that cutting taxes, reducing spending, decreasing national debt, and returning to a gold standard is a certain answer to our economic woes, and as a voter I'm not sure I'd buy that any more than the current solutions.

I need to reread what was part of the original CWA.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by lel

I need to reread what was part of the original CWA.

Here you go.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by lel

A detailed Contract With America 2 would have to be a major group effort built upon a coalition, but I would wholeheartedly agree with Sage Rat that to have any chance of success that the proposal would have to based primarily upon economic recovery and would have to pound on Obama's current failure to turn the economy around. Right now would be their best bet to make such a contract that would either be silent on social issues or would simply call them an issue of states' rights, thus achieving the same effect as having no opinion on such issues.

Here, the GOP runs into the potential conflict between a portion of its old base (which won't tolerate retreat on the social-right issues) and the Tea Party crowd (much of which is actually hostile to the party on those issues, having correctly realized that the GOP uses them the way a magician uses a hot scantily-clad assistant).

[BrainGlutton]

I would suggest making an immigration crackdown the centerpiece, with emphasis on enforcement against any employer who hires undocumented labor.

Except that, while that would highly motivate the GOP's populist-nativist-paleoconservative-white-working-class base, it would also run up against the interests of its corporate base, which provides a lot of the money for the conservative movement, and which wants cheap immigrant labor.

[Mr. Excellent]

A chicken in every pot, but absolutely no pot in the chicken.

(What?)

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I would suggest making an immigration crackdown the centerpiece, with emphasis on enforcement against any employer who hires undocumented labor.

Except that, while that would highly motivate the GOP's populist-nativist-paleoconservative-white-working-class base, it would also run up against the interests of its corporate base, which provides a lot of the money for the conservative movement, and which wants cheap immigrant labor.

There is only a very small percentage of companies which have any interest in illegal immigration, and frankly if the immigration was stopped, they'd just move their farms and factories over the border where everything would be even cheaper. So really there isn't a strong motive to keep things as they are for anyone.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Well, it'd be interesting to start looking at the original plan from 1994.

Some of the aspects of that contract are, quite obviously, fairly outdated in the modern political world. Crime isn't a very big focus of national politics, like it was back in the 90's. Same thing with fears of the UN taking over our military. Wait, I'm doing this wrong. Let me go through each provision (as outlined by wiki, anyways).

The Fiscal Responsibility Act - Obviously something that the Republican Party, in theory, would love to make the issue of an election. It's the sort of promise that galvanizes Libertarian-leaning voters, Tea Partiers, and a large part of the Republican base. It's the failure of Bush to continue the practical application of this that lead to a lot of conservative voters (myself included) to withdraw from voting for them (I voted for Chuck Jay in 2008, many of my like-minded friends didn't vote at all.)

The Taking Back Our Streets Act - As I said above, not really as big an issue as it was 15 years ago

The Personal Responsibility Act - Probably not as popular an item these days with so many voters or family members of voters on unemployment benefits, and the lack of the idealized spectre of welfare mothers leaching off the federal government. The fact that most of it already passed also makes it moot. Replacing it with some sort of act limiting benefits to non-citizens (illegals in particular) would do a lot to galvanize the Republican base, and probably be looked upon favorably by a lot larger a segment of the population than what I imagine most members of this board might imagine.

The American Dream Restoration Act - Already done

National Security Restoration Act - Already done. Al though there's a certain segement of the base that would love to see a total pull-out of the US from the UN, I don't think that it'd be helpful with society at large or swing voters to put that as a major issue

Common Sense Legal Reform Act - Tort reform is something that ought to be continued, and is probably necessary in the face of an already passed healthcare bill. I don't know how sexy this is: it's certainly something that could pull in a lot of voters from a wide spectrum of the population, if they understood and cared about it. It'd require a lot of investment to make that happen.

The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act - Perhaps the key element to be revived in a Contract With America 2.0 The GOP needs to put together a realistic and appealing set of guidelines for retoring the economy that's different from the Bush/Obama 'toss sackfuls of cash at corporations' method.

Citizen Legistlature Act - A radical reshaping of our political landscape, which would get my vote for a pol, no matter what else the guy supported. I'd love to see it attempted again.

There are a few other things which possibly or probably would at least be considered by an attempt to restructure the alliance of old school Republicans, fiscally conservative democrats and libertarians that swept into office in '94. They, in large part, revolve around the social policies connected with the Religious Right: the Defense of Marriage Act, anti-abortion measures, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and a continued criminalization of marijuana. I tend to think that the various anti-gay portions aren't really worth it in terms of votes. An anti-abortion plank seems to still be both popular and gaining in popularity, rather than the reverse. I'd love a switch to a marijuana-legalization plank, not because I use the stuff (I don't), but because it'd be a peace offering to the libertarians who got jilted by Bush 2 in exchange for the religious wingnuts. I think the GOP would have a better shot at winning in the long term by actively courting them and relying on a muted level of support from the evangelicals rather than the reverse.

[Caffeine.addict]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I would suggest making an immigration crackdown the centerpiece, with emphasis on enforcement against any employer who hires undocumented labor.

This would be a smart tactic to bring out their voters and galvanize their supporters. I don't know how practical this would be to implement, and frankly, I have to wonder about the unintended consequences of such an act, but I agree that in the short term, this would be a vote getter.

[Little Nemo]

There is a Contract From America. Here's its proposals:

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
4. Single-rate income tax.
5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
7. No public health care.
8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
10. Repeal recent tax increases.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

There is a Contract From America. Here's its proposals:

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
4. Single-rate income tax.
5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
7. No public health care.
8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
10. Repeal recent tax increases.

With the exception of #8, I just sprang wood.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

With the exception of #8, I just sprang wood.

Several of them are essentially just repeats of each other, so to summarize I'd say there's only the following real provisions:

1) Everything must be Constitutional.

This is already the case.

2) Laws must state which section of the Constitution will allow them to do what they do.

The Constitution gives the government free reign to do anything it wants so long as it doesn't go against one of our Constitutional rights.

3) Keep the budget balanced.

Probably not a good idea:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism....amendment.html
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2950
http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/0...nced-amendment
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/1...ce_schick.aspx
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n252tv6550435791/

4) No raised taxes.

How do you expect to do that and keep a balanced budget?

5) No earmarks.

Trading things is how politics is done. There's more to politics than voting on stuff, there's also the business of interacting with other countries and businesses and whatnot where some amount of tact and tradeoffs is necessary. Keeping your politicians unable to get experience in this, or having them entirely divorced from the practical aspects of the ramifications of choices isn't necessarily a good thing. If a local business fails, that puts thousands of people out of work. For a politician with no ties to his region, that doesn't matter, because he's only asked to analyze stuff coldly. For one who has some ties to local business, it does matter. For a politician whose never had to trade hogs, once he gets onto the international front and has to deal with doing so with France or Iraq or wherever, he's coming into it with no prior experience and is liable to screw the US out of lots of deals that would be good for us.

It might be a rather bizarre and ad-hoc solution to these problems, but ultimately earmarks aren't about to destroy the country anytime soon, do serve some purpose, and no better alternative to achieve the same purpose has been suggested. It's also likely that no matter how you try to stop them, they'll persist anyways.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

There is only a very small percentage of companies which have any interest in illegal immigration, and frankly if the immigration was stopped, they'd just move their farms and factories over the border where everything would be even cheaper. So really there isn't a strong motive to keep things as they are for anyone.

The Bush Administration's immigration-reform proposal included a guest-worker program -- and that definitely was one of the factors that killed it politically. I can't imagine why it would have included such a thing, if some powerful business interests had not wanted it very urgently.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The Bush Administration's immigration-reform proposal included a guest-worker program -- and that definitely was one of the factors that killed it politically. I can't imagine why it would have included such a thing, if some powerful business interests had not wanted it very urgently.

In your view of the world, if powerful business interests wanted such a thing, then why was the bill dead on the water politically?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

2) Laws must state which section of the Constitution will allow them to do what they do.

The Constitution gives the government free reign to do anything it wants so long as it doesn't go against one of our Constitutional rights.

I'll see your N&P clause and raise you the 10th Amendment.

4) No raised taxes.

How do you expect to do that and keep a balanced budget?

Reducing income and requiring a balanced budget would mean the same thing for the government as it would for any other entity: reduced spending. See below.

5) No earmarks.

Trading things is how politics is done.

My issue with earmarks is how they are passed. Any spending bill designed for some certain worthwhile project that's constitutionally mandated doesn't get passed unless it includes a provision for X million dollars dedicated to building a Plow and Lantern museum in St. Crapsville, MN, matching funds dedicated to a youth basketball program in Harlem, and funding a pelican observatory on Lake Pontechartain. It's those tradeoffs which end up massively bloating governmental spending because politicians can't stomach the idea of spending any federal dollars without an immediate return on their vote's investment.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

I'll see your N&P clause and raise you the 10th Amendment.

Which says that the powers of the Federal government are limited to those in the Constitution. The Constitution grants all power (so long as it is necessary and proper and doesn't impinge on any rights) to the government, and hence it gives those powers to the Federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't appreciatively change anything.

Reducing income and requiring a balanced budget would mean the same thing for the government as it would for any other entity: reduced spending. See below.

Why should the people tell their politicians to turn laws down if they know the politicians can't raise taxes? They can tell their representatives to keep passing legislation after legislation racking up the bill, and keep treating it like it's someone else's problem down the run.

My issue with earmarks is how they are passed.

Then that's an issue of how they are passed, not in getting rid of them.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

In your view of the world, if powerful business interests wanted such a thing, then why was the bill dead on the water politically?

Because they are powerful enough to strongly influence the Administration (or, at least, the Bush Administration), but not powerful enough to overwhelm all other forces in the political arena, including the GOP's anti-immigration base.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

The 10th Amendment doesn't appreciatively change anything.

It seems pretty silly that the founders would have wanted to include it then. Or perhaps they didn't subscribe to your "The federal government can do anything it wants" belief?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by jtgain

It seems pretty silly that the founders would have wanted to include it then.

Yes, it does. Sometimes they were pretty silly.

[BobLibDem]

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
Silly posturing. If a law isn't constitutional, challenge it.

2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
I'm not sure if cap & trade is the best legislation, but too often "no cap & trade" is the motto of global warming deniers.

3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
Moronic. Look at the mess California is in. There is more to governing than saying no to tax increases.

4. Single-rate income tax.
Benefits the rich. Why do so many middle classers carry their water?

5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
Got one. It's called the House and Senate.

6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
Got one. It's called the budget.

7. No public health care.
You lost this one, get over it.

8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
Yep, that's what we need, fewer regulations on drilling. One oil spill must not be enough.

9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
Pork is hard to define and it's insignificant in the overall budget. This is like swatting mosquitos as you're being attacked by hyenas.

10. Repeal recent tax increases.
Moronic. Why do you think the budget is so far in the red? Hint: Bush Tax Cuts.

This is a Contract on America.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

My comment there was that it's a pretty steep challenge "to create a GOP agenda that (a) GOP Congresscritters and Congressional candidates are willing to run on in a general election, (b) won't get the GOP base hopping mad, and (c) will draw a modicum of support from centrists/independents."

<snip>

The ground rules are simple: what matters isn't whether you think it's a good or bad agenda, but whether you can argue that it does or doesn't meet the three criteria above.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
Silly posturing. If a law isn't constitutional, challenge it.

2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
I'm not sure if cap & trade is the best legislation, but too often "no cap & trade" is the motto of global warming deniers.

3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
Moronic. Look at the mess California is in. There is more to governing than saying no to tax increases.

4. Single-rate income tax.
Benefits the rich. Why do so many middle classers carry their water?

5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
Got one. It's called the House and Senate.

6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
Got one. It's called the budget.

7. No public health care.
You lost this one, get over it.

8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
Yep, that's what we need, fewer regulations on drilling. One oil spill must not be enough.

9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
Pork is hard to define and it's insignificant in the overall budget. This is like swatting mosquitos as you're being attacked by hyenas.

10. Repeal recent tax increases.
Moronic. Why do you think the budget is so far in the red? Hint: Bush Tax Cuts.

This is a Contract on America.

All quite true. But, how do those 10 ideas fail to meet RTFirefly's three criteria?

[BobLibDem]

Point noted.


In the contract, I don't think all GOPers would want to run on all those points.

It would not get the GOP base hopping mad

I don't see it as getting much support from indies and Dems. I think a lot of rational people are starting to realize that taxes cannot be continually and perpetually cut, and that requiring supermajorities leads to political paralysis. What the contract seems to be doing is building filibusters into the system and choking it. I just can't see any Dems or moderate indies getting behind it.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Hey, tell you what. We can argue politics all over the place. I'd actually be interested in people, particularly folks like BobLibDem, outlining a response to RT's OP. You know, knowing the foibles and frailties of the US public, the necessity of keeping the base they already have, what would liberals think would be a winning (not necessarily good, or nice or keeping with any sorts or morals or ethics) strategy for the Pubs to win over a majority of the voters?

[Little Nemo]

I agree that some of the economic ideas being proposed are bad. Talking about lowering taxes and reducing the deficit are signs of somebody that's avoiding economic reality. And claims about pork and waste are smokescreens - as an actual percentage of the budget they're minute. The only way you're going to see real cuts in government spending it doing things like ending overseas military operations or abolishing social security. If this is what the authors of the Contract From America are proposing they should say so openly - this is a pretty major change in American policies and the voters should know what they're asking for.

But overall it could be worse. It's pretty much a capitalist libertarian agenda rather than a family values/America first agenda. No proposals for outlawing the Spanish language or gay marriages or flag burning.

[BobLibDem]

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by jtgain

It seems pretty silly that the founders would have wanted to include it then. Or perhaps they didn't subscribe to your "The federal government can do anything it wants" belief?

As the Wikipedia article on it states, the 10th Amendment is simply a truism. It restates the obvious to make sure that the obvious is understood:

'The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."'

[Chronos]

But overall it could be worse. It's pretty much a capitalist libertarian agenda rather than a family values/America first agenda.

Except for that second point, which mandates socialism in the energy industry.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

But what about the jobless rate? That's going to be Issue #1 this November. What can the Pubs offer, consistent with their politics, that offers some plausible (at least, plausible to their base) chance of reducing it?

[Chronos]

They'd probably claim that keeping out immigrants will fix the job problem. It wouldn't, of course, but they could probably convince enough voters of it anyway.

[Little Nemo]

Except for that second point, which mandates socialism in the energy industry.

Abolishing cap and trade environmental regulations? I'm not seeing the connection you're going for.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Abolishing cap and trade environmental regulations? I'm not seeing the connection you're going for.

Lack of anti-pollution regulation socializes the costs of environmental damage.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

As the Wikipedia article on it states, the 10th Amendment is simply a truism. It restates the obvious to make sure that the obvious is understood:

'The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."'

Even so, the constitution as originally ratified saw the federal government as having few and enumerated powers and the states having the vast remainder.

To have a position that reverses this, is at odds with the founders' intentions.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Even so, the constitution as originally ratified saw the federal government as having few and enumerated powers and the states having the vast remainder.

To have a position that reverses this, is at odds with the founders' intentions.

True, but what they intended and what they wrote are separate things. I think when it comes down to it, though you might intend to lock the government down on what it should or shouldn't do, there's no real agreeable answer beyond a few finite, obvious things. I mean, technically speaking the Federal government shouldn't have a thing to do with blocking up the oil spill (unless you include the N&P clause), and yet everyone seems to think that it obviously should be in their provenance to step in and do it just because the central government is the ultimate power for the people to project what they want done. When it came time for the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to actually choose to block the Federal government from having free reign, they factually didn't. They said, well, you never know what's going to happen and if it seems like the central government really needs to do something, then cutting that off is harmful. They might have been able to envision the scope of involvement that the Federal government has in general life today because of that, but all of the choices that led to this point were based entirely on the full right of our legally elected Representatives to pinpoint things that seemed necessary and that were in their purview or best accomplished under their purview and made it so based simply on the Necessary and Proper clause.

[Little Nemo]

Lack of anti-pollution regulation socializes the costs of environmental damage.

That's an unusual interpretation of socialism.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Lack of anti-pollution regulation socializes the costs of environmental damage.

Socializing the costs of industry is perfectly capitalistic.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

1. Reduce taxes on corporations and businesses and shift their burden to incomes of the wealthy.
2. Support moderate regulation of the financial industry
3. Ignore the health care bill and see what happens
4. Limit pork barrel spending to a bare minimum
5. With the exception of national emergency no new major spending projects
6. Toughen up security on the border but provide a work program for illegals already here.
7. Decriminalize use of marijuana and use it for revenue purposes
8. Remain strong on Iran and North Korea but do not provoke war
9. Continue withdrawal from Iraq (possible due to the policies of Bush) and maintain the fight in Afghanistan with a focus on building up infrastructure
10. Similarly be wary of Russia and China, do not advocate total elimination of nuclear stockpile
11. Maintain a strong prolife plank
12. Advocate a broad-based energy plan (NO CAP AND TRADE) including increasing offshore drilling and nuclear power. Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident

[Sage Rat]

How milquetoast of you.

And I'll eat my hat the day (anytime within the next 5 years) that a pro-Marijuana stance becomes a feature of the Republican Party.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

1. Reduce taxes on corporations and businesses and shift their burden to incomes of the wealthy.
2. Support moderate regulation of the financial industry
3. Ignore the health care bill and see what happens
4. Limit pork barrel spending to a bare minimum
5. With the exception of national emergency no new major spending projects
6. Toughen up security on the border but provide a work program for illegals already here.
7. Decriminalize use of marijuana and use it for revenue purposes
8. Remain strong on Iran and North Korea but do not provoke war
9. Continue withdrawal from Iraq (possible due to the policies of Bush) and maintain the fight in Afghanistan with a focus on building up infrastructure
10. Similarly be wary of Russia and China, do not advocate total elimination of nuclear stockpile
11. Maintain a strong prolife plank
12. Advocate a broad-based energy plan (NO CAP AND TRADE) including increasing offshore drilling and nuclear power. Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident

1 Are you kidding? The base will not support increased taxes on ANYBODY.
2 The business base doesn't want anyone regulated
3 Ignoring a bill that has been the bread and butter of striking fear in the masses doesn't seem to be a good strategic move
7 Hardy har har. Like the teabaggers are going to get behind that one.
9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don't think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.
12 Why would ANYONE put increased offshore drilling in their platform?

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident

This "isolated incident" is merely the worst environmental disaster this country has ever faced, by far, and is going to harm the economies of every single gulf coast state.

Yeah, I think trying to downplay it is a really bad idea.

This country needs to move away from oil as a means of providing energy/transportation. Period.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Knorf

This country needs to move away from oil as a means of providing energy/transportation. Period.

Somehow I don't see that making it onto the Pubs' platform . . . nor the Dems', either.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Somehow I don't see that making it onto the Pubs' platform . . . nor the Dems', either.

You'll get some lip-service form the Dems; that's about it.

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by Knorf

This "isolated incident" is merely the worst environmental disaster this country has ever faced, by far, and is going to harm the economies of every single gulf coast state.

It's could end up the worst environmental disaster the world has faced, depending on how one defines environmental disaster. I'm guessing our fair haired boy doesn't live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico, eat seafood, or vacation at the beach in the Eastern half of the United States.

[Chronos]

9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don't think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.

No, Curtis is right. It wouldn't be possible to withdraw from Iraq if we had never gone there in the first place.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

Fuck #5. Let NASA go hang. Those bastards are the reason we don't have a working space station right now. In the interests of all Americans, space exploitation should be in the hands of private enterprise.

[Chronos]

In the interests of all Americans, space exploitation should be in the hands of private enterprise.

Nothing's stopping them.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

1 Are you kidding? The base will not support increased taxes on ANYBODY.

Its not increasing on anyone, its shuffling the taxes.

2 The business base doesn't want anyone regulated

Most businessmen are not laissez-faire all the way. At worst they are Reaganomic type minimal regulationists.

7 Hardy har har. Like the teabaggers are going to get behind that one.

If a respected Republican proposed it, it might work.

9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don't think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.

They do care about winning in Afghanistan which will be acheived through building infrastructure.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Somehow I don't see that making it onto the Pubs' platform . . . nor the Dems', either.

How about nuclear power. As to the Gulf disaster much of the oil we get cause oil spills in places like Nigeria-you're just shifting the disaster somewhere else.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by silenus

Fuck #5. Let NASA go hang. Those bastards are the reason we don't have a working space station right now. In the interests of all Americans, space exploitation should be in the hands of private enterprise.

The ISS isn't working? News to me. I'm quite skeptical of the ability of private enterprise to handle manned spaceflight. I'll believe it when I see it (yes, I know about SpaceShipOne. I was more impressed with Mercury).

[Little Nemo]

As Chronos pointed out, there's nothing preventing private companies from having a space program. But the reality is that all significant developments in space travel have been government operations. So the evidence is that turning over space exploration to the private sector would mean the end of space exploration.

[qazwart]

The Republican Contract with America

1). We promise to help support the Family and push to make sure that marriage is between one man and one woman.

2). Except in certain parts of Utah which are heavily Republican. In that case, it's between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman...

3). We will stand firmly against the Homosexual agenda, and will refuse to have any more homosexual affairs.

4). Unless that guy is helping us with our luggage, or we're making a quick bathroom stop.

5). We will support the free enterprise system and believe that the government shouldn't be giving out our hard earned tax dollars to anyone. People should stand on their own two feet.

6). Unless you're a farmer of a heavily Republican state which in this case we'll make sure that the government gives you plenty of dough.

7). And use price supports instead of depending upon the free market to set prices on crops.

8). Oh yes, if you run a really big business, we'll make sure you get special tax breaks too. Just keep those contributions coming.

9). We respect anyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves and put in a full day's work.

10). Unless your name is Juan and you snuck in here illegally. Then you should stay out.

11). Unless you know anything about gardening. My last gardener was deported. (Stupid government interference in the affairs of private citizens.)

12). We believe in the little guy. The guy who makes a simple middle class salary of $350,000 per year and lives in a seven bedroom house in the suburbs. The small businessman who runs the business with 400+ employees. The banker who gave me that job on the corporate board of directors and a half million dollar salary. The business owner who lets me use his private jet for free. The multimillionaire who lets me stay in his summer home in the Bahamas when I needed some private time with my family, well my secretary, but my family was on my mind the whole time.

13). We believe... Look this isn't working. Is it?

Let's just move to Plan B: Look a terrorist! The Democrats are socialists! They're going to take away your guns! The apocalypse is coming and the President is the anti-Christ! Vote for me, or the world will end! ARRGGHHH! Don't think! Be scared!