Should the DEMS offer their own Contract With America?

[D505]

@John Mace

It’s a great idea. The Dems can campaign on the promise to appoint SC justices, in the tradition of Thomas and Scalia, who will stick to the original intent of the constitution, and who won’t legislate from the bench.

But those would be conservative judges, which isn’t going to happen. The Democrat Liberal base would flip out, since the judiciary is the only place Liberalism can be introduced into society anymore… people simply do not vote for such things as the Eminent Domain decision and the medical marijuana prevention decision.
What worked with the Contract with America was that the points in the plan were clear and direct items which the Republicans promised to vote on, combined with the fact that a majority of Americans supported each point in the plan. Why don’t Democrats do that?

If everything they want to do is NOT supported by the majority, how the heck are you going to win on that? Same with trying to win on generalities.

I know one left-leaning issues which Democrats can run on, which the majority of America would support… prosecution of business owners who hire illegal aliens. That would help working class Americans in this country because illegals drive wages down and use more in government services than they pay in taxes. The businessmen get rich and that’s that. :mad:

Another thing they could do is promise to pass laws which force business to further adhere to proper accounting rules, and forcing government programs to also adhere to proper accounting rules. Such rules would be seen as both good for catching tax cheats, fraud, and waste as well as good for the health of business and government in general.

-d

[John_Mace]

@D505

But those would be conservative judges, which isn’t going to happen. The Democrat Liberal base would flip out, since the judiciary is the only place Liberalism can be introduced into society anymore… people simply do not vote for such things as the Eminent Domain decision and the medical marijuana prevention decision.

Uhmmm… I was kidding. Wasn’t that obvious?

BTW, the medicinal marijuana issue can’t be called a “libera” issue as there are probably more conservatives who are comfortable with that SCOTUS ruling than liberals.

[middleman]

@elucidator

Take DeLay (R-Undead). He represents one of the most Republican districts in Known Space. There is almost no chance of electing a Democrat there. But he could be challenged by a reasonable Republican in the primary. The result would not appear to alter the balance, R replaces R. But it would.

Not exactly.

DeLay only got 55% in the 2004 election.

That’s a nice majority, but not a lock. And Richard Morrison, his opponent, was a nobody.

DeLay actually has a contest this time. He is facing 4 term Congressman Nick Lampson who was actually defeated by Ted Poe in my district last cycle Lampson was one of the victims of the Texas redistricting.

I still think DeLay will prevail (not only because of the 55%, but because Lampson will be painted as a sour grapes, carpet bagger), but to say that a GOP victory in that district is a certainty is not really accurate.

[SteveG1]

@Bricker

Oh, yeah. That Supreme Court decision that had the liberal members of the Court in favor and the conservative members of the Court opposed. That’s a good issue to hang election of Democrats on.

It is, if they promise to pass laws stopping property seizures, and spin it in just the right way. The easiest path would be to proclaim that they are “protecting the little guy against the Dreaded Megacorporation”.