The Hill has an interesting article on a strategy shaping up for 2006 with the DCCC for a battle on ethics.


In 1994 the Republicans made huge gains in the House in large part due to a lot of corruption they exposed in House Democrats.

In 2005 it appears that the shoe may be on the other foot from my perspective, especially since the House Republicans have been toeing the party line and letting the DeLay scandal slide. There have also been numerous other incidents in the past few years. The Republicans consistently claim they are the party of "family values", yet there have been plenty of minor scandals recently with people cheating, coming out as homosexual, etc. It hasn't been particularly harped upon by the Democrats yet, but the dirt is out there.

The Leftcoaster reports on a recent Republican heavy Gallup poll which puts congressional approval ratings at a paltry 37% with 10% having no opinion.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

I hesitate to really address these questions in any great detail because it is quite obvious that the Democratic Party, at least their leadership still doesn't get it. They don't understand why they lost in 1994, and they still don't get it. If they think they can win back the Congress by running around the country and throwing up a bunch of attack ads against Republicans, then Republicans will get a fillibuster-proof Senate in 2006 and a veto-proof Congress in 2008.

That's not how Republicans won in 1994. Not even close, but hey, if the Democrats wanna believe that, fine by me. Knock yourself out.

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

Like Aquilla, I challenge the premise that the 1994 GOP congressional wins were due to successful exploitation of ethical vulnerablities. That may have been true in certain specific races, but not for the big picture. The Gingrich strategy of using his Contract with America to "nationalize" the election was successful; that is, it focused attention on the big national issues and not the local ones congressional races are usually decided on. Ethics played a minor part, but mainly it was about the issues, and that's what Republicans won on.

Right now it looks to me like Republicans are in a very favorable position on the issues for 2006, and I don't expect they'll do at all badly.

The ethics problems of Tom DeLay are not one and the same as those of Newt Gingrich. It will be difficult for the Democrats to make DeLay the poster boy for congressional corruption unless he implodes dramatically and taints the House GOP majority in the process. Something tells me DeLay would resign his seat before he allowed himself to be exploited by the Democrats in 2006.

But give the Dems some credit. They've got to try something or risk becoming totally irrelevant as a political entry. Bush is still raising money for the GOP to shore up vulnerable party candidates and I'm betting it's not so hard to recruit new blood if you're a Republican these days.

The Dems need a better message than, "If Bush is for it, we're against it." They may develop one, but right about now I don't know what it is.

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

While the Republican dirty laundry is stinking more these days, I don't see that Demos have claimed any moral high ground in the House. Election season is about 8 months or so away, and with the Demo leadership considering this moral thing, maybe high ground can be taken. Right now, no.

2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

Man, ten years sure shoot by quickly! I don't see much similarity coming for the 2006 elections. Morality might play in a certain way, as in stop ripping us off please. I'm curious to see if Demos can run without major backing from corporations -- the grass roots idea. That might be a sort of moral issue.

Poking Congress' noses into private affairs might be another one -- thinking about today's news regarding pulling the plug on terminally ill patients, and how Congress has stepped in due to moral values, or so we hear.

The other take is that all terminal patients (without living wills) will be required to stay plugged in, and of course that costs money. Who pays? Medicare?

I can see what might be called moral values coming into play, but more on the lines of how much shafting the public is willing to take.

1. I don't think the situations then and now are all that analagous. The Democrats had controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for forty years when the Republicans had their dramatic victory. What will be twelve years of dominance is hardly enough time for people to be more concerned about ethics charges than items on the Congressional agenda. Especially, when they're largely levelled at one one man, House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX). Many of the so called "ethics violations" are activities that many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle do.

2. I reiterate there isn't enough abuse or on a wide enough scale to have a national effect necessary for a Democratic take over. The Democrats as the minority party in almost every way are in a tenuous situation. In order to be independent they have to fight tooth and nail against Republican initiatives, and as a result they have to be obstructionists to survive. They have little air time to put forward an opposing program when they're constantly fighting off an aggressive Republican agenda. The elections of 2006 and 2008 are the last opporunities, in my opinion, to stop a long-term Republican majority in national politics. Wasting time on Mr. Delay and other Republicans's reputations is not going to help them, and it's simply squandering their valuable air time. President Bush's victory has put foreign policy in the Republicans court. The Democrats should hit their weak spot. The Democrats need to get a clear domestic agenda across. That's what's going to help them in 2006.

I wonder if the Republican leadership remembers why they won in 1994.

Lower taxes, ok they did that.

Fiscal Responsibility, Ummmm can't really check that one off

Smaller Government, Well, not a good track record there either

Term limits, we all know how they manipulated that one.

Eliminate the department of education, Nope, they actually increased it


Thats just a few of the more memorable line items in the contract with America. One out of five is not good, even in politics.

I think the Republican party is slowly moving closer and closer to loosing power as more and more of their hypocrisy comes is publicized. Probably not in 2006, but 2008 is looking a little worse for them each day.

I for one think they should have been voted out long ago. NOT because I think the Democrats are any better, but because they failed to address most of the items in their own platform, and on term limits they manipulated the situation to not have to enact them but still be able to look like they tried. Re-electing these bums rewards this kind of behavior and can only bring us more of the same.

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

I don't think the emocrats have their act together enough yet to make major advances in 2006. However, 2008 might be a different story.

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

No(unfortunately, since government seems to run better when one party can force the other to compromise). The Democrats attack on Delay is a desperate shot from a dying party IMO. How can you attack a member on ethics when your own party violates these ethics even worse(Demos take more funded trips)? As noted earlier, I am not sure that Newt nationalized the election in '94 because of ethics. I think that taxes had a lot to do with it.

2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

Poorly. Democrats are not going to win the moral values voters. They need to focus on fiscal responsibility. Steal the libertarians. The Democrats need to attack Republican's ties to big business, present a fiscally responsible front to highlight the Republicans weakness in this area, and provide a plan to save Social Security.

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

The Democrats are in far worse trouble than the Republicans have ever been, but if they go down, they'll take the Republican Party with them, so there is hope. The Democrats have relied on the same tactics the Republican Party uses: Slick ads, "we're better than they are" remarks, and a lot of baloney. Americans are getting tired of it. Times are bad, while some think Clinton was the reason for the prosperity some experienced during his term, others know he was pro-free trade, too. While some blame Bush for the War in Iraq, Kerry made clear that if he won, we wouldn't be leaving. The reason the Democrats are in trouble is they can't differentiate themselves from the Republicans. Not surprising, since both parties answer to the same corporate donors and have similar and sometimes even identical positions on issues. Advertisers know that, when you have two products that are identical in attributes and price, the one that gets the glitzier shine is more likely to be bought. But Americans have more access to information than we used to, and a lot of us want to throw both products off the shelf and get something that works for us!



2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

This is all about packaging. Show me a human being in his/her forties and older who doesn't have skeletons somewhere. Besides, when DeLay is accused, Republican apologists simply say, "The Democrats do it, too." The Democratic Party only has one hope, and it's a slim hope: To become, or convince Americans that they have become, an opposition party. I voted for Kerry based on what he said about Haiti and other issues, and most of all, because he protested the Vietnam War and objected to the Iran Contra goings-on. I felt there was a sliver of difference between them, although my vote was reluctantly made. I won't vote for a Democrat again. Not after the party refused to investigate the numerous discrepencies and suspicioius evidence: Vote counts not adding up, projections way off in certain states, but accurate in states where fraud wasn't suspected, the CEO of Diebold's remark about delivering Ohio to Bush, the voting machine distribution in Ohio, the glitches in the voting machines that, miraculously, didn't favor one or the other on a roughly 50/50 basis, but consistantly favored Bush, and other issues that threw the election into question. It was Cobb and Badnarak that investigated, and it's Greens, Libertarians, and Independents who will have my vote from now on (unless the machines still aren't fixed, with paper trails, and with large numbers of independent monitors with the right to exit poll and the right to access every aspect of the election process. I'm not standing in line for hours to press buttons on a machine that should have a "For Entertainment Only" sticker on it!).

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

I think that the Republicans today have the same problems that the Democrats did in 1994. Namely the government still has a bad odor. It wastes money, cannot provide ethical leadership, is corrupted by the influence of money (add three more of your own here) Now the Republicans have control of the executive and legislative branches and it is now their fault instead of the Dems. So an anti-gov't backlash is possible. I see a real credible place for a populist movement to rise up to clean house. OS calls something that I would envision the Centrist Revolution, well at least he uses the term I don;t know where it was coined.



2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

The Dems are nowhere near focused enough to do something like that. I assume the turn to Howard Dean is supposed to do something like this but I don't think the right person with the right program has come along to advance a Democratic Contract for America.

Plus it probably won't work twice. Why get excited about sweeping a new ruling class into power so they can disappoint us too?

I'd have to agree with an earlier post pertaining to fiscal responsiblity. If the democrats can get those voters on their side, the Republicans will have lost a huge part of their base.

Also, I think gas is more important that most people think. If the prices are still high, Democrats can promise a change. They could also point out they have no ties to the oil industry to begin with so they will favor the people over the industry.

Most importantly, just get a message. Any message will do. I will be very disappointed if the democrats just run as a opposition party with no ideas or hopes for the future.

Well the concept certainly is not original, though the actual term might be. If not, I may have violated someones copyright with the name of my blog.

The key to reaching those who are in the centrist camp is to abandon rhetoric and name calling, present real plans for solving real problems with cost/benefit analysis to show that the solution is worth the cost and the possible problems that might result from it. If it doesn't, why the heck are you supporting it?



There were some deceptive practices that went on with the first one, so if you want to try for a second you better do it above board, all the way.

As for who could present it, the person is likely out there. The person is likely a passionate thinker who is considered a maverick by their own party and as a result cannot get the airtime or support from their party to get the message out.

Watch the party rogues, the solution probably rests with them.




This is the biggest stumbling block the Democrat Party faces today. What is the message? If you cannot articulate a message that is different the the incumbent's idea(s) and then present it to the public as if you really thought we are competent adults then why would you expect people to take a chance on you rather then just go with "the devil you know"?

But continuing the he/she's wrong and were right campaign, where you answer the "why are you right?" questions with "because he/she's wrong", then you might as well start packing up the shop for good right now.

Maybe sense this is Bush is serving his last-term the democratic party might have something worth taking into consideration, though I'm not holding my breath.

I don't see much of a voice for the republican party either. Who's going to run? Colen Powell? HAH!

With week canidates like the current roster I would say an independant is going to win..
But that would be idol optimism..

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

This idea dismisses other important factors that changed the make up of the House. The South had been voting Democrat for generations and that has changed. It is not likely to change back because of ethics violations. Also, Hillary was getting crushed for her Health Care plan at the time. The way the districts are drawn it is more likely the Republicans will pick up seats than lose them. Short answer to the above question no. The Democrats ran the House for 50 years and the Republicans are going to be there for at least the next 10 years unless there's a major shift in voting trends.


2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?
This wasn't the strategy in 1994, also the Republicans had a list of specific ideas. The Democrats are a little short on specifics these days. These questions remind me of all the 2004 is 1992 comparisons that turned out to be wrong.

1. Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats have changed positions here with the Republicans now having some of the same ethical problems the Democrats had in 1994?

I agree with Aquilla from the standpoint that it will take more than ethics and scandals to have a repeat of 1994. The majority (if not all Americans) already think politicans are corrupt or at least vunerable to scandals, Nothing to run on there. Yes the ethical problems and the situations are similar, but where is the national message????



2. This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?

The Dems will lose badly despite the GOP screwups over the past few years because they don't have a plan. I'm no fan of Bush or Republican policies for the country, but they can at least argue they have a plan for the country.

It's simple, tell the American people what is their (Democrats) vision for America and they might even attract some conservative support (you never know). But you can't go into a football game with no offensive plays, you have to have a gameplan.

Message control is the key. Come up with a catch-on slogan that sticks.

the Democrats are bad at turning ethical problems into news. and it seems to me that mainstream America is less concerned with some of DeLay's ethical problems than they are with DeLay's legislative priorities.

in a sense, sure, I think the Dems and Reps have switched places, in some ways. but it almost doesn't matter: the Democrats have no idea how to cash in.

for once, I mostly agree with the conservatives. the Democratic party leadership blows. the Democrats in the House and Senate, despite having plenty of reason for being outraged, appear more negative than positive. they appear to be more against things, than for anything. the people notice this kind of stuff, in a very big way.

it will take a very well organized marketing strategy like the Contract for America idea to take back the congress, but the Democrats should have started on it by now. Public opinion may even lean in favor of the Democrats on several issues, but people go for image over substance. I doubt the Democrats will gain many seats in 2006. I think they will gain a few, though. it won't be enough. and it won't be due to any planning on the part of the Democrats. the Republicans will lose them. the Democrats will not have won them.

I don't see the Democrats employing this kind of strategy that the Republicans did in 1994. if they did, and if they got a clue that "demos" means "people" ... and became populists, ... i think it could work. but maybe not.

because Conservatives rule the debate. Democrats must learn to walk before they begin to run. Conservatives have been very well organized and have been working on their language and message for decades.

"A litany of complaints is not a plan."

What has happened is inevitable part of politics. The Democrat party implemented most of their strong ideas in the twentieth century. Civil Rights, Social Security, Affirmative Action, Medicare, and Welfare just to name a few. I am not going to go into the politics of each. Some are great ideas others are okay.

I think the biggest idea left for the Democrats is universal health care. Unfortunately, there is not a "great idea" on how to pay for it. We are also at the stage where a lot of those "implement ideas” need to be reformed because of population changes and because they are going broke. The Democrats are now for the status quo while Republicans are at least coming up with ideas about how to reform those programs. There is a fear on the left (justifiable) that Republicans want to get rid of those programs, but those programs are far too entrenched in the American psyche to be done away with.

America is now moving politically to the right after a long jog to the left. It will swing back the other way eventually.

how do you qualify this statement? I see this stated often. I have no idea what it means. Republicans are currently in power. they know how to win elections. Republicans are winning elections. but it doesn't mean that "America is moving to the right" or that America is becoming more conservative. American is not moving politically to the right.

when Americans are polled, based on what I have seen, the same delineations occur. do you have any evidence that shows that America is becoming more conservative?



it is important to note, as no one ever does, that moderates outnumber liberals and conservatives.

Twentieth Century Republican Presidents

1900-12
1921-1932
1953-1960
1969-1976
1981-1992

8+12+8+8+12=48

My point is that the pendulum swings much more often than each century.

I agree that Republicans have had more ideas that are out there to put in play in the last 25 years. But there successes of recent years and the questionable popularity of some of these successes lead one to think that a swing back is possible. I think the Republicans could have been in a much more solid position by now. But I see the parties squandering and squandering. The Dems were in the driver's seat in 2000 and lost it.

2006 could easily be a 1994, but as pointed out previously in this thread. More than opposition is needed. A program that catches the public attention and even admiration is needed. 1994 had the idea of bringing fiscal conservatism to D.C. and taming the inside the beltway demons. They pulled together for a political revolution.

The opportunity is there. But a crew of Dems would need to rise up and get things fixed.


The other major difficulty is that in some states like Texas the local democratic party remained strong after the southern conservative departure to the Republican party. now that those changes have happened redistricting has tilted the balance in favor of Republicans. This adds another layer of difficulty. The opportunity is there, the Democratic Party does not seem to be in the position to capitalize on it. Howard Dean introduced a spirit of populist revolt but no clear uniting philosophy. Being shrill will catch attention but not win the day. Dean is no William Jennings Bryan, and Bryan was a beautiful loser, not a champion.

We are not talking about the Presidency. It will always go back and forth. Look at how long the Democrats were in the majority party in the House (38 years) before 1992. Before 1980, the Democrats enjoyed 45 years of majority status between 1933-1980. While the Presidency moves back and forth quickly, the Congress has longer-term control.

With the south and Midwest becoming more Republican the voting trends, current districts, and population shifts from the North to the South it means more Republican Congresses. The Presidency is a different story. Moderate southern Democrats always have a good shot at winning (Carter, Clinton).

Without question the ethical problems of the GOP out weigh those of the old Democrat stalwarts Rostenkowski and crew in 1994. Beyond the similarities, congressional hookers paid by corporate pimps, the GOP is more vulnerable first because they claimed an ethical cleansing, and they haven’t. None of the old Dem’s were accused of gerrymanderng (Delay), and the Dems didn’t try to change their own party ethic rules to protect one of their own who had gotten indicted (Delay).

I got a pre-recorded message on the answering machine the other night detailing that our local Rep had taken money from Delay’s “slush fund”. So they’ve already started here locally drawing the lines between our Rep and Delay.

The 1994 Contract on America focused on several areas that were key to voters at that time. The ones I remember well and could be used to the Dem’s advantage are:


We all know how this is going, if not for Clinton’s persistence during his tenure the budget many have never been reduced.


Federal funding for local police have been reduced under Bush.


This was a HUGE issue in the 90’s, with a now 15 year majority, the last 5 years with a Republican President, the “Great welfare reform” that was promise has never materialized.


Again, we haven’t seen a bit of movement here (although I disagree with term limits).


Although it’s not a law, I believe the Dem’s could use the retirement package that congress helped themselves to (one of the best in the country, private or public) as a point that we’re stuck with social security while they’ve given themselves golden parachutes on the tax payers nickel.

College tuition has sky rocketed in the last 4 years mostly due to a cut back in federal funding, making it harder to send the kids to college. Another symptom of the ill advised tax cut.

Trickle down doesn’t work. The president has spent millions flying around the country pushing his ill advised Social Security reform. The size of government has grow under their watch.

I could go on, but the GOP is as vulnerable as they ever have been since 1994. It’s up to the top leaders of the Democrat party to package this and take full advantage.

But the key to knocking the Republicans is for the Dem's to have a plan of their own. With gas prices rising, talk about research funding for alternative fuels. Have a plan for real welfare reform. Find out what Americans really want in Social Security and follow up with a plan that reflects their wishes.

It's there for the taking, but you have to have ideas.

The Reagan economic model has been the same since 1980. Lower tax bracket equals economic and job growth. For all the hand wringing about tax hikes/cuts the tax rates are no where as high as they were in 1980. Clinton did raise taxes modestly, but Clinton did not change the economic model that has been in place for 25 years now. It is funny how many knocks "trickle down" gets when it our very successful economic policy.

Clinton did not reduce spending while he was in office. The surplus was more or less because of gridlock and the irrational exuberance of the stock market during the dot com boom. The boom generated tons of tax revenue. It was ultimately short lived because it was a bubble. The problem of "spending too much" was hidden for a few short years, but it is back again.

All that aside, 94 happened because of a variety of reasons. Unless something drastic happens, southerners and mid westerners are not going to start voting for Democrats. Look at Bush's approval rating in those states. There are only a handful of toss up districts out there.

In the Senate where Democrat gains are more likely there appear to be more venerable Democrat incumbents than Republican. It is quite possible that the Republican majority in the Senate could grow in the 06 election.

Bingo! This is all that needs to be said about the agenda, or lack of one for the Democratic Party. They haven't learned a darn thing. "Contract on America" was a term coined by the Democratic Party, probably Begala or Carville as a term of derision for Gingrich's Contract with America. It was an attempt on Gringrich's part to focus attention on national issues in local elections. And, it worked and what's more, that contract signed by Republicans was completely fulfilled - to the letter. It was a pro-active agenda that addressed the national issues of the day that were most important to most American voters.

There is no such pro-active agenda for the Democratic Party, and as long as they have nutcases like Crazie Howie and Moveon.org setting their agenda, there won't be. In 1994 the Republicans told the American people "this is what we will do if you vote for us". In 2005, the message from the Democratic Party is "We hate Republicans and so should you". Big difference there.

Aquilla I don't agree that "Howie" is a nut case. I would argue the Dean and MoveOn do not have a clear agenda, but they have the loudest clearest voices right now. In a vacuum of leadership other noice still gets focused on. I am still trying to fihure out what Dean's agenda might be.

I think populism is the answer for the Democrats. But they will have to consciously slough off their intellectual elitist appraoch to issues of the common man to do this.

The "people" and the middle class have problems that aren't being addressed right now and they have the votes to make change happen.

Emphasis mine. You just might want to go back are read the entire Contract with America before making this claim.

Unless I’ve missed something (see my earlier post) this was not completely fulfilled to the letter. Most points were arguably meet and others haven’t been touched, welfare reform and term limits to name two. And my point that I poorly attempted to convey was this could be used against them. It’s one thing to make campaign promises in a speech and fail to follow through.

It’s quite another to have a document that was publicized in a grand event, that arguably won the elections for them and can now be brought up 12 years later and say “See, these guys were just desperate for power and your vote.”

And not all Republicans are as blindly loyal as yourself Aquilla. Many have seen the opportunity that the Republicans have squandered in the last five years; control of Congress and the White House and what do they have to show? Other than and ill advised tax break and ill advised war, what can the GOP hang their collective hats on?

Nothing readily comes to mind. Many stalwart Republicans on this board have jumped ship. And if this board can be used as a barometer for the rest of the country then I’d say you’re in trouble, especially if the Dem’s can put any type of game plan together.

I do not think that the Contract with America won the republican the elections in 94 for all the reason I have listed above. It is also difficult to claim the Republicans didn't live up to the deal because Clinton was there to veto everything they passed. It is also important to note the major programs that have passed in this country came from either wide bipartisan support or super majorities.

The ill-advised tax break you mention and the left continues to mention is up for debate. The economy is creating jobs, unemployment is low and the economy is growing. The war you spoke of was passed by both Democrats and Republicans even though Democrats keep seeming to forget that. When that resolution was passed Iraq was seen as part of the war on terror (that remains true). Democrats are also trying to separate the two even though there is a laundry list of reasons why Iraq fits into the war on terror. It this distancing from the war that I believe will continue to hurt Democrats as they appear weak in the war on terror.

Read the contract, Fife and Drum. Actually read what it says and what it promises. From your own link to it.....



No promise that anything would become law, they couldn't make that promise. The only promise made was that there would be a floor debate and a floor vote on the items in the contract. That was done in each and every case.

Term Limits was HJ RES 73 and received a House flor vote 29March1995, Roll call number 277. It passed, but not by enough to become a Constitutional Amendment. The promise made was a floor vote - Promise kept.

Welfare reform was entitled "the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995" and was Roll Call vote 269 conducted 24March1995. I think it went on from there to become law, but once again, the promise made was a floor vote - Promise made - Promise kept.

Military spending was dramatically cut.


If you would, please provide me a source where Clinton vetoed Welfare Reform and Term Limits.

I can save you time, neither came to fruition. That’s my point.

And you can make whatever claims you’d like about trickle down, but our economy is sluggish at best, possibly a hair away from a recession. I don’t know how old you are but I can tell you the 80’s (there was a recession) was one of the worse employment climates in my life time. And you might want to look up who termed trickle down “Voodoo economics”.

Once again I’ll save you time. It was Reagan’s opposition in the 1980 Republican primary. His future VP and future President, Bush The First.

Most economic theories are just that: theory. I go by proof in the pudding, and I can make a solid claim that as we paid off our national debt in the 90’s the economy responded. And the dot com’s were only a small part of that growth.

As soon as I pull all the numbers together I’ll share them with you. But I can tell you that when you look at the average and mean income from 1990 until present, compare that to the average cost of housing, tuition, insurance, and car prices, you and I as consumers have lost ground on the things that are important.

From the year 2000 until now credit card debt has reached an all time high. So this robust economy you speak of has been fueled by credit cards. Now there’s something we should hang our hats on.

Oh, and just ignore the fact that GM is going to lay of 25,000 jobs by 2008.

I guess you and I just have a different definition of a healthy economy.

What excuse can you make for the last 5 years though? The Republicans have had a majority in both the house and the senate and they have controlled the presidency. They don't exactly have too much to show for it.


Just because you don't know what the agenda is Aquilla doesn't mean there isn't one. Generally you don't find such things when you stick to conservative news sources and blogs. The election 2006 season hasn't really started off yet so you have absolutely no basis for your opinion other than the results of the 2004 election.

The things that I have read and heard from the leadership in the party indicate that they did learn that lesson from the last election as well as a few others. They haven't of course implemented anything yet.

So if you want to remain a blind loyalist constantly cheerleading for your side that is perfectly fine, it makes it all that much more fun when you get proven wrong and taken by surprise. In my opinion the democratic party has learned quite a few things, my concern is on how they'll apply that knowledge.

I see. The Democratic Party does have a plan, but it's a secret plan. That's an interesting tactic. Good luck with it.

I really don't know why I bother Aquilla but here goes.

First of all, even though this is technically the 2006 election cycle none of the candidates are really out there getting their message to people and the media certainly isn't covering it. I'm sure that some candidates have started fundraising and speaking, but nothing major.

So, given that - why would you expect any political candidate, Democrat or Republican, to have a plan Aquilla?

Secondly, as I said in my post the things that I have read and heard indicate that the party does know what went wrong, they have been thinking about it and they do want to do something about it. That has to do more with implementation than it does policy. But if you want to view this "secret" platform then you can do so on the extremely "secret" location of Democrats.org. They also have other "highly secret" initiatives in place like becoming a 50 state party again. Howard Dean has also talked about this "secret" extensively in recent speeches to "secret" audiences.

All of this is out there but as I said you aren't going to get it at Little Green Footballs, Free Republic and Fox News.

If you aren't going to bring your A game to this debate then please don't bother showing up. You can laugh about the Democrats on your own time all you'd like but some of us would like to discuss this with some level of seriousness.

Yes, I am quite aware of the political history of voodoo economics. Like a I stated before that is still our current economic policy, it has been so since Reagan. Clinton did not change this policy. He raised taxes modestly, but so did Bush.

As for the "paying down the debt" helped the economy in the 90s does not add up. The economy started trending upward in late 92 finally cresting in 2000. The growth of the economy started long before we reached a point where the debt was being paid (which was around 98).

The current growth rate of the economy is 3.8 which is good. We are not close to a recession (two quarters of negative gdp growth).

My goodness, CJ. Getting a bit testy there aren't you? The fundamental questions raised by you in this thread deal with parallels you have drawn between the situation in Congress in 1994 vs the way it is now. You seem to believe that the reason the Republicans won big in 1994 was because of ethics problems on the Democratic side of the aisle. I disagree. There is an old saying about politicians that goes along the lines of "he might be a crook, but at least he's my crook". Not sure how true that saying really is, but there is an element of truth to it I think. If the Democratic Party thinks it can win in 2006 with purely negative campaigning, something along the lines of ABB-lite, that's fine. Knock yourselves out. But that's not the way the GOP took control of the House in 1994.

I always like to take an opportunity to say "I told you so", so here goes

The Congressional Progressive Caucus made the news today - here is the article from the SF Chronicle.



There is your "plan", just in time to for people to start absorbing it and working it into their campaigns for the 2006 elections. I haven't read this whole thing in detail yet but I certainly plan on doing so over the coming weeks.

In recent speeches since becoming the DNC Chair Dean has called for exactly this kind of thing and he has called for it to be done on a 50 state level.


That isn't what I believe, that is certainly part of it and what prompted me to start this topic. But you are right, it was nationalizing state elections that did the trick.

It will not matter what the Democrat's message is, they are not likely taking back the House in the next six years. The Demographics are against it. If you look at each seat there are only a handful that are actually competitive. When the 2010 census comes out the Republicans will likely pick up more seats (after redistricting) because the south will get some of the north's districts.

Part of the reason the Democrats were the majority in the House so long was because they had a firm grip on the south. Those states are not likely to start shifting back into the D column any time soon.

CJ, I went to read about this plan, and it appears the Progressive Caucus hasn't updated their website for a few years now. The latest news release is from April 1, 2003, entitled "Affirmative Action Is Necessary And Must Be Preserved, " from Kucinich and Barbara Lee. Do you know of anywhere this can be found? Have they direct-mailed to anyone? (I haven't seen in my inbox and I subscribe to a few Democrat / liberal lists).

If you read the Chronicle article it says as much there, the web site hasn't been updated. What the article does say is that they are going to be doing a lot of work over the coming months to improve it, refine their positions etc. They have also stated that they are hiring some fulltime staff to work on things.



The last paragraph is I'm sure what they'll be shooting for.

Gotcha. I just didn't want to read it filtered through a news article. Well, it's the correct thing to do in terms of organizing. Even though I'll disagree with about 1/2 the positions, at least I'll know what they are. If the socialist-lite vision is enunciated very clearly and with some solid organization, it will definitely provide a contrast to what the conservatives are saying and not just an anti-Bush message. Given the contrast vs. the more-organized mainstream Dems and conservatives, these progressives have their work cut out for them - lots of faith to put in folks like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, so good luck.

This article sums up the reason why the House is not going to be shifting over to Democrats any time soon. The south is becoming more Republican every year and the population in the South is booming. It doesn't mean Democrats can't win the White House, but there is a lot of work to be done to bring the South back into the Democrat party.

A poll like that is also fairly meaningless because the vast majority of people identify with a party they often don't know much about. This goes for both political parties by the way.

As an example many of my friends back home vote Republican for no other reason than the fact that is what everyone else does, or it is what their parents do, etc. However, if you were to start discussing certain issues with them, in a lot of cases they'd be angry with the Republicans and side with the Democrats or even a third party.

Now that doesn't really mean too much other than it is possible for any politician to turn around that demographic with the right message. As many have said time and time again "all politics are local politics."

If the Democrats were to aggressively go after the South and other demographics that have been voting Republican instead of just conceding the elections then you might see a little bit of a shift. It is still unclear as to whether they'll actually do that despite talking about it.

I would agree with your assessment. I have lived in the South my entire life and many people voted for Democrats for generations because of the Civil War (Yellow Dog Democrats). However, this does not change the political reality.

As I said before it is possible for any candidate to win an election in the south, but for Democrats they have to be moderates. The only liberal Democrats coming from the South are in the safe gerrymandered districts that are not a true sample of southern political sentiment (Mel Watt, my former Representative).

1994 was not caused by a single event but a political realignment that had been years in the making and that is still taking place. The only issue I see that could swing things back towards Democrats (in the South) is immigration. From California to Florida, both parties have neglected this one issue.

I'm glad to see a Progressive Budget. Thanks CJ for putting the plan out there. When I first looked at the budget, I thought - they just want increase funding everything! Then I got to the bottom and saw that they want to decrease the military by about an 1/8 and eliminate nuclear energy initiatives.

I have to agree with Aquilla that it is a secret budget though since I have never heard Howard Dean or anyone else mention these ideas(Dean was on the Daily Show the other week and Stewart asked him point blank what the Democrats would do if they were in charge; to which he responded with some Bush bash followed by a few large, sweeping statements). From what I can gather from the site, the strategy actually is to maintain the status quo. Raise taxes on the rich and cut the military to pay for increasing and maintaining the general social welfare.

I suppose I should once again stress that this website is years old and it only made the news because some members of the party are committed to the idea.

Aquilla can throw around this "secret plans" nonsense all he wants. He doesn't have a clue what the democrats are trying to organize for two reasons - 1) he doesn't care and 2) he doesn't follow party articles or listen to speeches.

As far as I'm concerned I hope that the majority of Republicans out there have this sort of arrogant attitude because it means that they'll get caught with their pants down when the Democrats do execute their strategy. This might or might not happen in 2006, I don't know.

I remind you, CJ, of the questions you posed to start this thread......



The implied premise contained in these questions was that the reason the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 was due to ethical problems on the part of the Democrats. That premise is fundamentally flawed as are some of the characterizations of the Contract with America.

That contract laid out specific details on what the GOP would do if it took control of the House. What rules they would pass and what legislation they would advance to a floor vote in the first 100 days. Not platitudes, but specific legislation, they even published the bills they would introduce. And, they did exactly what they promised.

Now, if the Democrats want to do a similar thing, fine, we can debate the specifics of their proposals. Thus far though all I hear is hysterical screaming about Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, white Christians and how stupid Bush is, how our troops in Gitmo are like Nazis and how the GOP is going to end life as we know it on planet Earth. If y'all want to run on that platform, fine, better than fine, it's excellent.

To quote another fine Republican......





Edited to add a comment about what JMLA posted.....



He's right, I saw that show. Jon Stewart was almost begging Crazie Howie to give him something concrete to work with. Kind of along the lines of....

"You guys might think about releasing say a fact a day about what you would do or something like that".

"That's a great idea Jon and by the way did you know Bush is stupid and his mother dresses him funny?" Now there's a real contribution to the national debate......

This strategy seemed to work well in 1994, how do you see it working out for the Democrats in 2006?


There are signals that the Dems have solid chances of making a comeback in 2006. from todays WSJ: "Public Losing Faith in Bush, But Not in the Iraq War" (subscription required)

"By 57% to 33%, Americans now say that allowing workers to invest Social Security contributions in the stock market is a "bad idea," and opponents are much more likely to say their minds are made up. A plurality in every age group opposes the idea, and senior citizens -- who take on disproportionate influence in midterm elections because of their high propensity to vote -- are hostile by 71% to 19%."

...

"Fully 52% say the nation is "off on the wrong track," while just 34% say it is "headed in the right direction." By 55% to 28%, Americans disapprove of how Congress is doing its job."

...

"By 45% to 38%, Americans say they would prefer that the 2006 elections produce a Democratic-controlled Congress rather than a Republican-controlled Congress."

... however ...

"Republicans can take some solace from the fact that Democrats aren't winning much public applause either. The Democratic Party is rated negatively 36% to 34%, while Republicans are rated negatively 41% to 38%."

2006 is going to be very interesting.

I don't know who has been following the special election in Ohio's district 2 between Hackett (D) and Schmidt ( R ) but the results could end up being a very good predictor of what is to come in 2006 and 2008.

The results (as of this evening) were as follows - link:
Schmidt 59,095 (52%)
Hackett 55,091 (48%)

So, yes Hackett lost. However if you stop there you are missing the big story here. Here are some facts:
- In the 2004 race for the OH-02 house seat, the gap between the democrat and republican candidate was 44 points, tonight it was only 4 - source.
- Hackett overwhelmingly carried the rural counties in district 2 and held his own in the more populated (and heavily Republican) counties in the area.
- Hackett is an Iraq war vet and he openly and publicly called Bush and his ilk chickenhawks. Furthermore he openly and publicly called Schmidt and her cronies to the carpet for their corruption.
- He was a completely inexperienced politician running against an encumbent Republican in a district they claimed they had in the bag. They outspent him and even pulled the whole swiftboat act on his military record all over right-wing radio today.

The Cook Political Report is a great place to get election analysis. An email was sent out before the OH-02 election which I have since deleted but found posted on DailyKos. I found the following section interesting:


If Hackett had been running in any other district in Ohio this evening he'd probably be heading off to the House when they come back in session. This thoroughly disproves the whole "democrats can't win the heartland" theory because it doesn't get much more heartland than some of these rural areas. It also shows a little bit of buyer's remose on Ohio's part and possibly the cumulative effect of one scandal after another in DC.

To be perfectly honest I didn't know much about this guy till I started reading about him today, but I plan to follow all of the post-mortem analysis closely. Whatever he did, he showed everyone that the Republicans won't have as easy a time in 2006 as they'd like to think.

We've still got about a year or so to go, plenty of time for more scandals...

Proving yet again that ideology will determine opinions; I have the exact opposite view of this election. Hackett ran ambiguous commercials where it appeared that Bush endorsed him. Hackett also received tons of organizational support that is huge when the voter turnout goes from 308,000 to 114,000. This election means less than Mark Warner's win in Virginia in 2003.

It must be addressed but Bush’s approval rating is the same as it was last year. At least according to Rasmussen, the only discrepancy in the polls is the shift from likely voters to a survey of adults. Normally there is a three to five point change against Bush in the different methodology.

If anything, this kind of results could be bad for Democrats. If they believe nominating candidates that call the President an “SOB” is a formula for victory it will become even more difficult to win. It did not work for Republicans in 98 and it certainly will not work for Democrats in 06.

In response to the Schmidt/Hackett election scenario being bad for republicans.

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/18/62411/9376

Take a look at his commercial that was running before the election. Sounds like he is in agreement with Bush.

If democrats are trying to fool the public and run as republicans to win votes, then this is disingenuous at best. They can't win on their platform, so now it's try and deceive to get in??

The only way the Democrats will ever regain the Majority is to support Democratic issues and stop trying to mirror the Republicans on issues!

Until the control of the political process is snatched back from the grasp of Multinational Corporations placed back in the hands of average Americans were are doomed!