And nothing illustrates this better than the democrat agenda for 2006--or should I say, lack of it (emphases mine--subscription required)
Democrats Decide They Don’t Need ‘Contract’ to Win
ROLL CALL
By Morton M. Kondracke
September 28, 2006
The 12th anniversary of the Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America” came and went on Wednesday without a 2006 Democratic counterpart. And there won’t be one.
Instead, Democratic House and Senate leaders held yet another press conference to denounce the Republican Congress’ “rubberstamping the Bush administration’s misguided agenda.”
Despite repeated urging from various quarters, including from former President Bill Clinton, that the party needs to make clear what it stands for and not just against, Democrats contend that off-year elections are referenda on the party in power and that a Democratic alternative agenda would only provide targets for the GOP to attack.
(In other words--their ideas stink)
Just to underscore the point, the Senate Democratic leadership’s “war room” sent out an e-mail Monday declaring that “much hype surrounds the 1994 Contract with America. The Contract is often incorrectly credited with playing a large role in the Republican victory in the mid-term elections. Evidence shows that this was not, in fact, the case: Candidates did not campaign on the Contract with America, and most Americans were unfamiliar with the document’s existence.”
Still, it’s a fact that then-House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) gathered 337 GOP Members and candidates on the West Front of the Capitol on Sept. 27, 1994, and issued a 10-plank platform that included welfare reform, a balanced-budget constitutional amendment, tort reform, Defense budget increases, middle-class tax cuts and term limits for Members of Congress.
It’s undoubtedly true that the GOP won the election largely because of disgust with Democratic management — the failure of Clinton’s health care reform plan and Congressional scandals — but the contract did provide a legislative roadmap for the GOP once it won a 52-seat victory and had to help govern the country.
This year, Democrats have issued a two-page positive agenda, “New Direction for America,” but there’s been no Capitol steps rally, and the document has all the earmarks of being just a handout designed to be an answer to the question, “But what do Democrats stand for?”
Interesting question.
Perhaps Groucho Marx said it best:
I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway--
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it.
Your proposition may be good- But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it
or condensed it, I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it On general principles I'm opposed to it!
(Chorus: He's opposed to it! In fact, in word, in deed, He's opposed to it!)
For months before my son was born, I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And I've kept yelling since I commenced it, I'm against it!
Thus, my friends, is the democrat agenda. "If Bush and the Republicans are for it, we're against it."
Have fun crashing and burning this November, dems....
From what I hear the fall doesn't hurt.
That is, until you hit the bottom.
Posted by leo at September 28, 2006 12:22 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/7851
Comments
Despite repeated urging from various quarters, including from former President Bill Clinton, that the party needs to make clear what it stands for and not just against,
You have to have been living under a rock for the last decade not to know what the Democrat Party stands for. It's why they're no longer in power, and spelling it out in the form of a "Contract" or "Compact" or whatever is only going to lengthen their stay in the wilderness. Even though it's intellectually dishonest, the Donk leadership at least understands this. Not to worry, however, because their every-day rhetoric and actions tell more about who they are than any organized statement they could ever issue. It must really suck to be motivated by a desire to "fool most of the people most of the time" instead of simply advocating and doing what's best for America.
Candidates did not campaign on the Contract with America, and most Americans were unfamiliar with the document’s existence.”
Those who man the Senate Democratic leadership's "war room" have a totally different recollection than I do. During much of 1994 I had two documents posted prominently on the front of my refrigerator: The Contract With America and the post-card-size flat tax form sent out by Jack Kemp and Empower America. Virtually every Republican I knew (as well as a number of conservative Democrats) did the same. It was the only time I can recall that a political party successfully nationalized a Congressional election. The elements of The Contract With America appealed to the majority of Americans. The elements of a Democrat Contract With America, if they honestly reflected what Democrats believe, WOULD NOT appeal to the majority of Americans.
Posted by: Retired Spook at September 28, 2006 01:14 PM
"Candidates did not campaign on the Contract with America, and most Americans were unfamiliar with the document’s existence.”
I recall during those campaigns that the Dems were constantly proclaiming it a 'Contract ON America', now why would they try to slam something they now claim the public was not familiar with?
Posted by: Hermie at September 28, 2006 01:31 PM
I recall during those campaigns that the Dems were constantly proclaiming it a 'Contract ON America'
I remember hearing that term from various lefties, including one I knew personally back then. What was really interesting is that Bill Clinton, in his nomination acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention, listed among the accomplishments of his administration several of the Contract's provisions, such as getting Congress to stop excempting themselves from the laws they pass. (Mr. Gingrich's site, www.newt.org, might have some more details, but I haven't been over there in a while.) Thus, it doesn't surprise me one bit that the Dems would love to see everyone forget about the Contract, since while they badmouthed the Repubs because of it, a president from their party signed much of it into law.
Posted by: Bigfoot at September 28, 2006 01:54 PM
Yeah, Bigfoot, note how Clinton has taken full credit for welfare reform---as if it didn't have to be shoved down his throat (sorry for the imagery).
One of the things I love is how this Adminstration has had to deal with extensive and vocal disagreement from within the GOP on so many issues, and yet the Dims have settled on the term "rubber stamping" to describe the party. ???
This from a party who could not, would not, object to a single thing Saint Bill ever said or did, no matter how disgusting, illegal, or simply stupid, describing a party of independent thinkers who let the President know when they are not happy with him.
They just get more and more Orwellian...
Posted by: Almiranta at September 28, 2006 03:07 PM
I recently asked my neighbor, who is a registered Dem, why she is a Democrat, and she replied, "I DON'T KNOW." That says it all for me. She doesn't know WHY she is a registered Democrat? To top things off, she is against gay marriage, is pro-life, against raising taxes, and wants the government to do everything it possibly can to thwart another terrorist attack. I told her she's actually a Republican and needs to change her registration.
Posted by: kimberly4bush at September 28, 2006 06:47 PM
I think Retired Spook hit the nail on the head with "intellectually dishonest." To wit, Houghton Mifflin:
"lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
ADJECTIVE:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
By offering a party stance that opposes EVERYTHING Bush supports, they are violating the doctrine of liberalism, because these champions of political correctness are bigots against anything conservative. And to define their doctrine as such is not broad minded, it is intolerant, the true enemy of creativity and progress. I would love to see this Sunday a "soft" conservative hit job where every reporter asks every Democrat who appears exactly on which issues they agree with Bush.
Posted by: Morris at September 28, 2006 09:35 PM
We're running on Iraq, since the economy is being falsely tweaked by the Bush admin, with them lowering gas prices.
I heard that over 4,000 foreign insurgents have died in Iraq since teh war started. It appears to me that Bush is using disproportionate force. And all he says is "stay the course." That's not a plan. We need a change of direction--now that's a real plan!
Posted by: Progressive to the Bones at September 28, 2006 10:48 PM
Bone head,
Damn dude that post of yours is funny as hell...
Posted by: GOP4ME at September 29, 2006 01:37 AM
“NewD irection for America” pointing the way to the future
Posted by: Neo at September 29, 2006 05:41 PM
I see a contradiction in the title:
"don't need no stinkin'"...
It actually implies that we "do need stinkin' agenda". Just something I picked up...
Posted by: Antonite Savel at October 3, 2006 08:25 AM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Despite repeated urging from various quarters, including from former President Bill Clinton, that the party needs to make clear what it stands for and not just against,
You have to have been living under a rock for the last decade not to know what the Democrat Party stands for. It's why they're no longer in power, and spelling it out in the form of a "Contract" or "Compact" or whatever is only going to lengthen their stay in the wilderness. Even though it's intellectually dishonest, the Donk leadership at least understands this. Not to worry, however, because their every-day rhetoric and actions tell more about who they are than any organized statement they could ever issue. It must really suck to be motivated by a desire to "fool most of the people most of the time" instead of simply advocating and doing what's best for America.
Candidates did not campaign on the Contract with America, and most Americans were unfamiliar with the document’s existence.”
Those who man the Senate Democratic leadership's "war room" have a totally different recollection than I do. During much of 1994 I had two documents posted prominently on the front of my refrigerator: The Contract With America and the post-card-size flat tax form sent out by Jack Kemp and Empower America. Virtually every Republican I knew (as well as a number of conservative Democrats) did the same. It was the only time I can recall that a political party successfully nationalized a Congressional election. The elements of The Contract With America appealed to the majority of Americans. The elements of a Democrat Contract With America, if they honestly reflected what Democrats believe, WOULD NOT appeal to the majority of Americans.
"Candidates did not campaign on the Contract with America, and most Americans were unfamiliar with the document’s existence.”
I recall during those campaigns that the Dems were constantly proclaiming it a 'Contract ON America', now why would they try to slam something they now claim the public was not familiar with?
I recall during those campaigns that the Dems were constantly proclaiming it a 'Contract ON America'
I remember hearing that term from various lefties, including one I knew personally back then. What was really interesting is that Bill Clinton, in his nomination acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention, listed among the accomplishments of his administration several of the Contract's provisions, such as getting Congress to stop excempting themselves from the laws they pass. (Mr. Gingrich's site, www.newt.org, might have some more details, but I haven't been over there in a while.) Thus, it doesn't surprise me one bit that the Dems would love to see everyone forget about the Contract, since while they badmouthed the Repubs because of it, a president from their party signed much of it into law.
Yeah, Bigfoot, note how Clinton has taken full credit for welfare reform---as if it didn't have to be shoved down his throat (sorry for the imagery).
One of the things I love is how this Adminstration has had to deal with extensive and vocal disagreement from within the GOP on so many issues, and yet the Dims have settled on the term "rubber stamping" to describe the party. ???
This from a party who could not, would not, object to a single thing Saint Bill ever said or did, no matter how disgusting, illegal, or simply stupid, describing a party of independent thinkers who let the President know when they are not happy with him.
They just get more and more Orwellian...
I recently asked my neighbor, who is a registered Dem, why she is a Democrat, and she replied, "I DON'T KNOW." That says it all for me. She doesn't know WHY she is a registered Democrat? To top things off, she is against gay marriage, is pro-life, against raising taxes, and wants the government to do everything it possibly can to thwart another terrorist attack. I told her she's actually a Republican and needs to change her registration.
I think Retired Spook hit the nail on the head with "intellectually dishonest." To wit, Houghton Mifflin:
"lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
ADJECTIVE:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
By offering a party stance that opposes EVERYTHING Bush supports, they are violating the doctrine of liberalism, because these champions of political correctness are bigots against anything conservative. And to define their doctrine as such is not broad minded, it is intolerant, the true enemy of creativity and progress. I would love to see this Sunday a "soft" conservative hit job where every reporter asks every Democrat who appears exactly on which issues they agree with Bush.
We're running on Iraq, since the economy is being falsely tweaked by the Bush admin, with them lowering gas prices.
I heard that over 4,000 foreign insurgents have died in Iraq since teh war started. It appears to me that Bush is using disproportionate force. And all he says is "stay the course." That's not a plan. We need a change of direction--now that's a real plan!
Bone head,
Damn dude that post of yours is funny as hell...
“NewD irection for America” pointing the way to the future
I see a contradiction in the title:
"don't need no stinkin'"...
It actually implies that we "do need stinkin' agenda". Just something I picked up...