# The Democrats' Contract with America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058 "2005-10-13T14:11:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/41 "2005-10-13T17:45:35Z")
Here is my plan, catchy slogan and all. **Contract to Restore America** As Democrats, we vow to: 1. **Restore Fiscal Responsibility** We will no longer tolerate the practice of sending the bill for exhorbitant spending to our children. We will reverse the trend of writing tax policy for the benefit of the wealthy. We will aggressively trim all unnecessary spending, and we are committed to balance the budget and begin to pay the national debt. 2. **Restore National Security** We will relentlessly pursue terrorism and will take every step possible to protect the American people. We will maintain a well equipped and well trained military ready for any crisis that we might face. However, we will not spill the blood of our sons and daughters unless it is absolutely necessary and all alternatives have been exhausted. 3. \*\*Restore Economic Security \*\* We will work with state and local governments, industry, and labor to build and maintain a robust economy. A cornerstone of this effort will be a renewed focus on education. 4. **Restore Quality of Education** We will help local governments restore the quality of public school education. We will teach our children to compete with the rest of the world and we will use test scores as an indicator of progress, not as the goal to be achieved. We will assist our youth in pursuing higher educations by increasing the federal scholarship and loan programs. 5. **Restore America’s Image** We will reverse the growing anti-American feelings by pursing a foreign policy that is consistent and that promotes human rights. We will not begin any more unprovoked and unnecessary wars, and we will promise to the world that the United States of America will never again condone or practice the crime of torture. 6. **Restore Integrity of Elections** We will pass laws to ensure that every person who can vote can do so with confidence that his vote will be counted. We will ensure that only those who are eligible to vote may do so. We will ban the use of any electronic device or software that does not provide a paper copy that the voter may review and that later can be audited and recounted. We will require all manufacturers of electronic voting equipment to provide open source code that may be reviewed for integrity and we will insist that manual checks of all vote tabulations be a part of the process for every election. 7. \*\*Restore Governmental Ethics \*\* We will hold elected officials to high ethical standards and will investigate and prosecute violations as they occur with no regard to the party or position of the individual. We will eliminate the use of no bid contracts except in the most dire circumstance. We will not use the awarding of government contracts to reward or create political influence. 8. **Restore Public Safety** We will restore FEMA to the prominence that it once had and promise to the American people that the mistakes of Katrina have been learned and will not be repeated. There you have it. Nothing overly “liberal”, but we need to stress that we will end the utter corruption that the Republicans stand for. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/42 "2005-10-13T17:47:19Z")
I’d suggest staying the hell away from anything, foreign-policy-wise, in the Democratic Contract with America. What can be promised that the legislature itself can deliver? Stating “We will not support nation building” or “We will not engage American troops in foreign countries without serious investigation and accountability” doesn’t mean bupkus when you have control of Congress and not the Presidency; you can’t really deliver on most items. Note that, while national security and strong defense is considered to be the strength of Republicans, the 1994 Contract had _one_ item out of ten dealing with foreign policy. One. National security and strong defense has been a consistent weakness of the Democratic party for the last thirty years. You aren’t going to change that with a few points in a slogan; most voters believe the Democrats are squishy soft on terrorism, and that viewpoint won’t change until you’ve elected a President who proves he or she isn’t. Fight hard, then, to push foreign policy to the side and talk about domestic policy. I realize that the Iraq War is terribly unpopular, and therefore it seems like it would be an easy issue to hit Republicans with. It isn’t. 52% of Americans thought the Iraq War was going poorly in CNN’s exit poll of the last election. Only 51% approved the decision to go into Iraq. And Bush still won, and Republicans made gains in the Senate. You can go the **BobLibDem** route and insist that no, Kerry really won and the Bush-Rove machine stole the election; or you can accept that Republicans are going to whip the Democrat’s butts on the “strong on terrorism” issue until a Democratic president has had a chance to prove him or herself. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/43 "2005-10-13T17:47:57Z")
> [@Aguecheek](#): > > 1. Kill pork - I like a line item veto. I agree, but that’s a tough one. The President and the voters might want a line item veto, but Congresscritters don’t. If Congress is willing to give it up, I’m all for it! > [@](#): > > 1. Severely limit industry/interest group lobbying - no gifts, no trips, no ‘sponsored’ seminars. Hell, limit industry contributions. Lobbyists should not be writing legislation. People do think too much money is spent. Come up with a specific proposal to reduce spending and the voters will love it. But, again, you’re asking Congresscritters to lift their heads out of the slop long enough to say “stop adding to the trough”. Very, very difficult. > [@](#): > > 1. Campaign finance reform - give each party a specific amount that they are allowed to spend on campaigning. Elections should not be won by those who can yell the loudest. Again, if you can make it work. The last round just made things worse-- ie, 527s run elections how. Don’t make it sound too European, though. And look out for the free speech issue. > [@](#): > > 1. Education - Lose the standardized testing. Teach kids to _think_. Fund schools based on population and nothing but. That’ll even out the disparity in rich vs. poor districts. Don’t punish teachers/administration for poor results, raise standards for hiring teachers in the first place. Institute a national minimum wage for educators. You’d probably need a constitutional amendment to reqire states to fund schools by population. School funding is a state issue, not a federal issue. Besides, are you going to be able to tell rich parents that they can’t contribute extra money to their own schools if they want? That’s what happens out here in CA a lot. > [@](#): > > 1. Oh yeah - raise the minimum wage across the board. Good luck on that one. A very modest raise (no more than $.50) might be OK in that it wouldn’t jar the economy too much, but it might put the GOP at a disadvantage if they don’t vote for it. Stay as far away from “living wage” proposals as possible. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/44 "2005-10-13T17:54:36Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > You can go the **BobLibDem** route and insist that no, Kerry really won and the Bush-Rove machine stole the election; or you can accept that Republicans are going to whip the Democrat’s butts on the “strong on terrorism” issue until a Democratic president has had a chance to prove him or herself. As much as I respect your opinion, I must ask you: If the 2004 election were held today, don’t you think Kerry would be mopping the floor with Bush? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/45 "2005-10-13T17:57:29Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Campaign Finance Reform has a difficult road in the US, and I’m afraid that your proposal might run afoul of the First Amendment. I’m a big fan of it, but I’m not sure it’d be viable. i have never bought the notion that restricting the influence of huge corporate donors in elections = restrictions on free speech. Hell, if you’re going to buy that, might as well dump “one man, one vote” for “one dollar, one vote” and be done with it. And stop calling ourselves a democracy while we’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/46 "2005-10-13T18:13:20Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > :rolleyes: And which of these positions do you think are unapologetically progressive positions? > > Daniel Well, if all you want is suggestions on how to repackage what you have lost on in every Presidental election since McGovern, knock yourselves out. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/47 "2005-10-13T18:16:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, if all you want is suggestions on how to repackage what you have lost on in every Presidental election since McGovern, knock yourselves out. It seems clear that you don’t understand the idea behind the thread, so I encourage you to read and not post. Thanks, though! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/48 "2005-10-13T18:17:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, if all you want is suggestions on how to repackage what you have lost on in every Presidental election since McGovern, knock yourselves out. > > Regards, > Shodan What were Carter and Clinton, closet Republicans? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/49 "2005-10-13T18:18:20Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > i have never bought the notion that restricting the influence of huge corporate donors in elections = restrictions on free speech. Hell, if you’re going to buy that, might as well dump “one man, one vote” for “one dollar, one vote” and be done with it. And stop calling ourselves a democracy while we’re at it. The way it would work is this: Supposing that Joe Progressive is running for president and you really want to support him. The law allows you to give him, say, $500 but that’s it. So, you decide to do some freelance campaigning for him. How are you going to do that w/o spending money? Suppose you want to spend lots of money. Can the government prevent you, Mr. Private Citizen from buying air time or ads in newspapers to voice your views? How about if you never mention the guy by name, but push for his platform? That’s pretty much what the 527s are doing now. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/50 "2005-10-13T18:26:56Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > I’d suggest staying the hell away from anything, foreign-policy-wise, in the Democratic Contract with America. > … > National security and strong defense has been a consistent weakness of the Democratic party for the last thirty years. You aren’t going to change that with a few points in a slogan; most voters believe the Democrats are squishy soft on terrorism, and that viewpoint won’t change until you’ve elected a President who proves he or she isn’t. Fight hard, then, to push foreign policy to the side and talk about domestic policy. This may be true, but I wonder: do you think that a platform based on America’s retaking global leadership on issues of human rights and promotion of democracy would be a poor choice? Right now, there’s a Republican weakness inasmuch as we’ve lost a fair bit of credibility on these issues. I think that Democrats could make some inroads here by making it clear that we’re going to restore America to a flagship position on human rights and democracy. (There’s a legit critique that we’ve never really been that flagship, but I don’t think many American subscribe to this critique, so we can set it aside in strategic discussions). It’s a good point that Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of influence on these issues, compared to the president. Maybe this bullet-point should hold off until 2008. I agree that campaign finance is not the best issue to start with, either. Although I’m in favor of it, it’s an issue where it’s too easy to get bogged down in the details. And when you campaign on Campaign Finance Reform, you’ve got two choices: 1. You abide by the reform proposals you’re setting forth, which means you bring in less money than your opponent and really shoot yourself in the foot; or 2. You don’t abide by the reform proposals you set forth, which opens the door to pretty substantial charges on hypocrisy. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/51 "2005-10-13T18:26:57Z")
BTW, the same free speech issue applies to corporations giving money to advocacy groups. I set up the hypothetical to be a private citizen, but it could be a corporation just as easily. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/52 "2005-10-13T18:29:28Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There you have it. Nothing overly “liberal”, but we need to stress that we will end the utter corruption that the Republicans stand for. **Bob** , I think that this gets back to the problem I’m hoping to address: Democrats have been campaigning since 2000 on the platform of, “Them Republicans are corrupt, and we’ll end their corruption!” That’s a negative promise, a promise **not** to do something. And I think it keeps us from winning. If one plank out of ten is about restoring honor and integrity to the House, that might be good. But the other nine have to be about positive things we’re going to do when we get into power, not just about the bad things we’re not going to do. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/53 "2005-10-13T18:33:25Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > It seems clear that you don’t understand the idea behind the thread, so I encourage you to read and not post. Thanks, though! > > Daniel Maybe I can get **Aguecheek** to post my ideas. A line item veto from him was “great”, from me it was not “unapologetically progressive enough”. You realize it was part of the first Contract with America, don’t you/ Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/54 "2005-10-13T18:35:35Z")
LHOD your point is well taken. We must take care not to offend or to present ourselves as only being un-Republican. 25% of the vote will come to us no matter what, 25% of the vote will go against us no matter what, it’s in getting the other 50% more comfortable with the donkey that is the challenge. Issue-specific platforms are a recipe for disaster, the minute you say you tolerate civil unions, the opposition collects all the anti-gay votes. The minute you advocate reproductive freedom, the opposition collects all the anti-abortion votes. We need positions that attract more than they repel. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/55 "2005-10-13T18:38:16Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > As much as I respect your opinion, I must ask you: If the 2004 election were held today, don’t you think Kerry would be mopping the floor with Bush? First off, I’m honored that you respect my opinion: thank you. Second- I think Kerry would be leading; but I don’t think it would be because Iraq got worse- it would be entirely due to Bush’s mismanagement of the Katrina aftermath. (Assuming, of course, that Bush’s distant and slow reaction would still be just as distant and slow during an election year, which I doubt. ) According to the CNN exit polls, 71% of Americans who voted in 2004 considered terrorism a major issue. Of those 71%, Bush led nearly 60-40 in terms of who would be seen as handling the issue better. Katrina may have damaged that perception, but I don’t know that it would cause an over 10 point shift. Again, I think Kerry would be winning- but that wouldn’t mean people would think the Democratic position on the war on terror was actually more tenable or stronger than the Republican position; it would be simply about Bush’s competence vs. Kerry’s. BTW- I think Bob’s list of points for the Contract is **excellent**. Id’ recommend dropping the “reverse growing anti-American feelings” part from number 5, as it’s easy to misconstrue that as playing to anti-Americans; Joe Sixpack is going to look at that, say, “Fuck what France thinks- we’re better than 'em”, and tune the rest of the paragraph out. Hell, remove that line, and **I** might vote for a Democrat that promises that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/56 "2005-10-13T18:39:22Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Issue-specific platforms are a recipe for disaster, the minute you say you tolerate civil unions, the opposition collects all the anti-gay votes. The minute you advocate reproductive freedom, the opposition collects all the anti-abortion votes. We need positions that attract more than they repel. Sounds like you’re saying more people agree with the Republicans on the issues than agree with the Democrats. What are the Democratic issues that attract more than they repel? Surely there’s more to the Dems than gay marraige? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/57 "2005-10-13T18:45:19Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This may be true, but I wonder: do you think that a platform based on America’s retaking global leadership on issues of human rights and promotion of democracy would be a poor choice? Right now, there’s a Republican weakness inasmuch as we’ve lost a fair bit of credibility on these issues. I think that Democrats could make some inroads here by making it clear that we’re going to restore America to a flagship position on human rights and democracy. (There’s a legit critique that we’ve never really been that flagship, but I don’t think many American subscribe to this critique, so we can set it aside in strategic discussions). I think you have to be careful how you phrase things: “human rights” to many voters brings up images of Carter’s incompetent foreign policy, and evoking a return to that era will get the Dems pasted (in the same way Bush’s calls for “conservation” got him equated with Carter in a bunch of newspaper cartoons.) And again- how do Congressional Democrats have any influence on America’s human rights campaigns? How do you take something that has been unilaterally delcared Bush and Rumsfeld’s fault and make it Frist and Delay’s fault? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/58 "2005-10-13T18:45:59Z")
Certainly my list would be massaged and wordsmithed to weed out the “code words” that send the Joe Sixpacks of the world into a tizzy. As close as the 2004 election was, I can’t believe that the rising unpopularity of the war wouldn’t do Bush in all by itself. In just one year, the war bandwagon is emptying out awful fast. > [@John Mace](#): > > Sounds like you’re saying more people agree with the Republicans on the issues than agree with the Democrats. I’m just being realistic about the current playing field. Single-issue voters break Republican to an amazing degree. If your single issue is abortion, you are very likely a Republican. Ditto that for gun control, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc. Being specific about specific social issues does nothing but repel single-issue voters. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/59 "2005-10-13T18:49:01Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > I think you have to be careful how you phrase things: “human rights” to many voters brings up images of Carter’s incompetent foreign policy, and evoking a return to that era will get the Dems pasted (in the same way Bush’s calls for “conservation” got him equated with Carter in a bunch of newspaper cartoons.) > > And again- how do Congressional Democrats have any influence on America’s human rights campaigns? How do you take something that has been unilaterally delcared Bush and Rumsfeld’s fault and make it Frist and Delay’s fault? Your words sting this admirer of Jimmy Carter. You’re absolutely right, “human rights” could well be a lightning rod for anti-Carter backlash. In a perfect world, we would all revere Jimmy Carter, but oh well… You certainly can’t reverse foreign policy in the Congress. But taking the Congress would certainly hinder Bush’s ability to pursue his wicked agenda on all fronts. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058/60 "2005-10-13T18:50:00Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Here is my plan, catchy slogan and all. > > **Contract to Restore America** > > As Democrats, we vow to: > > 1. **Restore Fiscal Responsibility** We will no longer tolerate the practice of sending the bill for exhorbitant spending to our children. We will reverse the trend of writing tax policy for the benefit of the wealthy. We will aggressively trim all unnecessary spending, and we are committed to balance the budget and begin to pay the national debt. > > 2. **Restore National Security** We will relentlessly pursue terrorism and will take every step possible to protect the American people. We will maintain a well equipped and well trained military ready for any crisis that we might face. However, we will not spill the blood of our sons and daughters unless it is absolutely necessary and all alternatives have been exhausted. > > 3. \*\*Restore Economic Security \*\* We will work with state and local governments, industry, and labor to build and maintain a robust economy. A cornerstone of this effort will be a renewed focus on education. > > 4. **Restore Quality of Education** We will help local governments restore the quality of public school education. We will teach our children to compete with the rest of the world and we will use test scores as an indicator of progress, not as the goal to be achieved. We will assist our youth in pursuing higher educations by increasing the federal scholarship and loan programs. > > 5. **Restore America’s Image** We will reverse the growing anti-American feelings by pursing a foreign policy that is consistent and that promotes human rights. We will not begin any more unprovoked and unnecessary wars, and we will promise to the world that the United States of America will never again condone or practice the crime of torture. > > 6. **Restore Integrity of Elections** We will pass laws to ensure that every person who can vote can do so with confidence that his vote will be counted. We will ensure that only those who are eligible to vote may do so. We will ban the use of any electronic device or software that does not provide a paper copy that the voter may review and that later can be audited and recounted. We will require all manufacturers of electronic voting equipment to provide open source code that may be reviewed for integrity and we will insist that manual checks of all vote tabulations be a part of the process for every election. > > 7. \*\*Restore Governmental Ethics \*\* We will hold elected officials to high ethical standards and will investigate and prosecute violations as they occur with no regard to the party or position of the individual. We will eliminate the use of no bid contracts except in the most dire circumstance. We will not use the awarding of government contracts to reward or create political influence. > > 8. **Restore Public Safety** We will restore FEMA to the prominence that it once had and promise to the American people that the mistakes of Katrina have been learned and will not be repeated. > > There you have it. Nothing overly “liberal”, but we need to stress that we will end the utter corruption that the Republicans stand for. Big. Fucking. Yawn. Do you know what this looks like, **BobLibDem**? A party platform, with all of its generalities. And who the hell ever reads them. Look at the Republican contract, by contrast. It is specific to the point of even having the legislation attached to it, and the signatures of the politicians committed to pushing it through. This is a major difference between the parties, and is a big reason why the Republicans eventually caught up to the Democrats and surpassed them in legislative power. Even before the Contract with America, Republicans were proposing legislation on a great many subjects. Most of these proposals failed, and failed dismally, but they were a demonstration to the public of the political and philosophical underpinnings of the party. And, when we did take over, some of these proposals finally made some headway. The Democrats, meantime, can’t be bothered to come up with a competing Social Security proposal a few months back. And you wonder why you guys are losing? Things aren’t going so hot for the Republicans right now, I’ll freely admit. We continue to be spared, though, by the incompetence of our opposition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democrats-contract-with-america/326058.md?page=4)