Was reading this article today on the Dems version of the Contract with America (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid accomplished nothing). Thought I’d see what the various Dems on the board think of it.
Do you think this is going to excite voters and turn things around for the Dems this election…or is it simply a rehash of the same ole same ole? What do you think about the emphasis of 75% as merely a referendum against GW? Do you think that will be effective? Should it be more? Less?
-XT
:smack: This (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid accomplished nothing) should say (Which Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says accomplished nothing). Sorry about that.
-XT
At this level of detail, how can anyone be opposed to this plan? I agree with the positions, but how will they be implemented? Is there a more detailed document available? Seriously, I am going to have a campaign document that says “I like puppies” when I run for president, and I will win.
That said, the polls I’ve seen indicate that the Democrats could probably coast to big wins in Congress at this point, so any concrete proposal at this point might dissuade more voters than it could possibly persuade. Bush’s approval rating is real, real low at this point. Perhaps it’s crazy like a fox.
Its a platform, doesn’t really count for much. It might provide a good answer to the “They have no plan!” bamboozle, but it won’t stop them from saying it. C’mon, dude, facts?
The Pubbies will have to go for the long bomb. Gay married Mexicans streaming over the border to take our guns and burn our flag. Something like that.
Merely the prelude. If the Dems get control of the House, they get their mitts on subpoena power, the trajectory of the shit will really intersect the locus of the fan.
Also, maybe I could say “at this point” like five more times in a goddamned sentence. I hate everything.
:rolleyes: at the “New Direction for America”. It boils down to “we like puppies”. It’s not offering solutions, or taking distinct positions, or doing anything more than creating a sound byte for the media. That ain’t gonna fly at the polls.
As always, the devil’s in the details. These are outline points. They don’t even rise to the dignity of slogans. It is a place to start – the mix of domestic and foreign/national security points is encouraging.
I’ve been watching this stuff since General Eisenhower took out Bob Taft in ‘52. I’m not sure a platform or a program or a wish list makes any difference with the bulk of the electorate. They seem to chose their leaders, Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, county supervisors and dog catchers on the same basis as they select a tooth paste – flashy TV ads telling them that their teeth will rot and fall out if they don’t buy brand X. It isn’t talking points that win an election . Elections are won by projecting a pleasant personality and digging up a plausible boogeyman. The candidate’s trade is perceiving with dismay and pointing with alarm.
That is not to say that the current incumbent didn’t both scare me and repulse me, but a narrow majority in the states that counted apparently were not all that scared or put off by our cowboy.
Six is too many things. Always break things down by threes. When talking this gives the feeling of a beginning, a middle, and an end. I think a better grouping would be:
1) National security
1a)- Energy independence
2)- Jobs and wages
2a)- Retirement security
3)- Affordable health care
I don’t think the lack of specifics at this point is a big minus. There is time for candidates to present their ideas on each category during their campaign.
Nobody votes for the platform anyway. This election, like every midterm election, will largely be a referendum on the President. Bush’s approval ratings are so deep in the shitter that the Dems should be able to sail to victory in at least one House as long as they don’t do anything stupid.
To me the platform looks substantive but safe. I know there’s not anything in there as exciting and as urgent as preventing queers from getting married or stopping people from burning striped swaths of cloth but it’s servicable.
But that isn’t a plan. “Energy independence” is a goal, not plan.
The Contract with America worked because it was concrete legislation that the Pubs promised to enact once elected. Now, that doesn’t mean that something else can’t work, too, but I don’t see anything here that I can sink my teeth into.
Authored by This Dana Bash? Pardon me if I get my facts elsewhere:
This piece at HouseDemocrats.gov probably lacks the wingnut filter: A New Direction for America SIX FOR '06
It’s amore detailed than the CNN piece, so it’ll take a while to dig through.
Are we to take it, then, that your previous mad enthusiasm for progressive politics has paled?
Previous meant for John
Well, I don’t vote party line anyway, so it’s not about me. If there’s a Dem I like, I vote for that person. The only time I’m inclined to vote by party is if I want to split up the legislative and executive branches. Besides, living where I live it doesn’t matter which way I vote-- a Dem is always going to win.
This seems to be the fleshed out parts, afaict anyway.
BTW, I didn’t realize Squink that CNN was a bastion of conservatism and wingnuttery. And contrary to what you may believe, I’m glad you found more data on this…I was in fact hoping (and quite confident) someone would. I did a quick search when I first started the OP, but didn’t see anything right off the bat.
-XT
It’s something of a myth that the Contract With America had a significant role in the '94 election. It was introduce only a few weeks before the election and from what I remember, exit polls at the time showed that most GOP voters (something like 70%) had never heard of the CWA and a majority of those who had (55-60%) heard of it said it didn’t have anything to do with their decison. The '94 election was all about righties hating Clinton, not grassroots enthusiasm for the GOP’s exciting legislative agenda. The same will hold true in this election. No one who hates Bush is going to by stymied by a boring Democratic platform. They could scrawl bathroom wall limericks on that thing for all I care. Platforms never really drive the agendas anyway.
So you agree with the 75% towards making this a referendum on Bush then DtC? You think thats pretty much all the Dems need to do to win back control?
-XT
I don’t know that they’ll win back control but I just don’t think they really have that much ability to affect the election no matter what they do. People are going to vote based on how they feel about Bush and there’s nothing either party can do about it. And since Bush’s spectacularly bad performance is their strongest issue anyway, it’s the issue they might as well milk for all they’re worth.
Its what it should be about!
This administration has led us into a turd-infested fever swamp! Since they cannot feasibly be tossed out on their butts, we have to do what we can to slow the machinery. Their judgement isn’t in question, that question has been resolved, to our dismay. Were it possible for them to blunder their way into bringing on a plague of boils, they would have done so.
The Republican dog and pony show is in tough shape, the pony is dead and the dog has rabies. Some minor jawing will take place around the Dem’s “agenda”, but the real punch from the Pubbies will be whatever wedge issue they settle upon, this years gay marriage. They never did give much play to the human-animal hybrid crisis, maybe they’ll settle on that.
The agenda’s fine, no prob, but as has been pointed out, the mechanisms haven’t been worked out. That will be difficult (wishing we had an understatement smilie…) And then there’s those roosting chickens, homeward bound. Such a fascinating innovation in economics: cut taxes and start a lengthy, wildly expensive war! We’re likely to have less with which to accomplish more.
But first and foremost, we’ve got to get a handle on his bunch of shitwits before they wreck these even worse.
Didn’t they try that a couple of years ago and fail miserably? I can still hear the echo from the backfire on that plan. Mainly form the direction of the Supreme Court.