Should the Democrats’ prevail in next month’s elections and capture a majority in one or both Houses of Congress, you can be sure the MSM will tout this as a victory of liberalism and a defeat of conservatism. Either verdict would be disingenuous, given that, outside of certain urban areas, the Democrats are hardly putting forward a liberal platform and that the GOP has all but abandoned the conservative ideas which helped them regain the congressional majority in 1994.
I read two pieces today which show how this is clearly not 1994 for the Democrats. For unlike the GOP that year, they aren’t running on much of a platform. As writers Margaret Talev and Kevin hall observe (via Lorie Byrd at Wizbang):
When Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 1994, ending four decades of Democratic dominance there, they followed marching orders they’d laid out in their Contract with America.
But if Democrats pull off the biggest shakeup of Congress since then by regaining control of the House and Senate in the Nov. 7 election, they will have no comparable document to guide them and thus may have a smaller claim to a mandate from the voters.
The 1994 Contract with America included draft legislation for budget, tax, military and social policies. It was a roadmap for what the new majority would do starting Day One through their first 100 days.
The Democrats’ version this year – “A New Direction for America/Six for `06” – is one page long. It lists six fairly general goals – and raises as many questions as answers.
The Democrats don’t have such a roadmap as comprehensive — and specific — as 1994 Contract with America, at least not one they’re making public. As the Wall Street Journal put it today: “What Democrats are campaigning on this year is a Non-Contract with America–mostly generalities about ‘helping the middle class’ and ‘ending the corruption in Washington.’”
While they’re campaigning on banalities and bromides, the Democrats are keeping their real agenda hidden from voters. For, if they make that public, they’d make it clear to voters that they haven’t changed since the American people voted them out of power in 1994. As the Journal puts it: “A Democratic triumph would produce a major shift in the national policy debate, and we can understand why Ms. Pelosi isn’t plastering most of this agenda on billboards around the country.”
To see the type of agenda we’d expect from a Democratic Congress, read the Journal’s piece. And you’ll understand why the Democrats have been keeping their focus on the GOP — and neglecting to campaign on their own agenda.
Clearly today’s Democrats are not the party of new ideas and the new direction in which they would like to take us is not much different from that in which Left has been trying to take us for the past forty-odd years.
what about the “six for 06”?
Lester, read the quote above: ““A New Direction for America/Six for `06? – is one page long. It lists six fairly general goals – and raises as many questions as answers.”
oh I didn’t see that. sorry.
but if they raise questions why doesn’t she ask them?
the current congress has already gone down in history as one of if not the worst ever, as has the president, though there are still some holding out for a “future generations will see his genius” thing.
I’d think of this election in terms of the “left behind “series. you can side with the caligulans of the GOP or the liberals and conservatives of the democratic party. but if you make choose the former you will have to face whatever it is that happens when we all get swept up into the paradise. 72 christian virgins or whatever
To me the most pressing issues of our time are
Iraq
Islamofascists
Iran N Korea
Social Security
Controlling Medicare
Pension Security
Border Security
Can anyone tell me what specifics the Dems have put forward on any of these. Yeah a few platitudes like “talk one on one with N Korea” and “DON’T build a fence on the border”. But what policies would they push. And as a conservative it’s my view that Government does most that does least….unlike lester a do nothing Congress, abuses less of it’s citizens. Matter of fact I’m for a part time Congress. Wish they still had to travel by horse and take weeks and weeks just to get to Washington DC.
Actually, the Dems have been pretty specific about what they’d do immediately were they to take over the House in January. It’s specific legislation they’d introduce in the first 100 hours of the session.
From : http://tinyurl.com/jw4cs:
“Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.”
Now you may not like what she proposes but it’s all popular with the American people.
How about “allow the government to negotiate directly with the universities for lower tuition for college students” instead?
Guess my list of issues are pretty trivial compared to the 100 hours stuff.
6: A truly childish response to a well-thought and meaningful statement / article from the Washington Post. Guess you can’t stand that Democrats actually do have some good ideas to counteract the negative direction that the republican led federal government has taken us; something even a large number of republicans agree with these days it seems.
#8: Kevin, that’s why I stated they wouldn’t necessarily like what the Dems propose to do but Dan’s post claimed the Dems offered no specifics and I think this first 100 hours plan is something he must have overlooked. Gene in #4 puts forward a laundry list of items, on few of which the Speaker of the House is in any position to establish policy. Frank in #5 pouts about the drug plan for Medicare but why should Medicare be the ONLY entity in the world prevented by law from negotiating prices with Big Pharma? Don’t get me wrong: I have investments in Big Pharma but it seems to me that the average American retiree is in essence being suckered in to subsidize the dandy deals that the French, Germans, Canadians and others around the world manage to negotiate with the drug companies.
BTW, that wonderful 700 mile fence Bush just signed off on? Well, the funds aren’t there for it http://tinyurl.com/yab72y ; it’s a fraud to fool the GOP base into thinking the Repubs are serious about keeping all that cheap labor away from the GOP-supporting companies that want it.
#9: On further thought, it’s not just Amerian retirees but every American who pays taxes to support Medicare. It’s not just the Congressional pages, it’s virtually the entire country the GOP is trying to screw.
Gene in Pennsylvania,
I reworked your list a bit.
Border Security
Iraq Islamofascists
Iran N Korea China
Social Security
Controlling Medicare
Pension Security
I put Border Security ontop. I worry about the Islamofascists comming in through our porous borders. I worry about these drug gangs/lords that are starting to behead police, and those that speak up against them getting into the USA. I also worry about our Border Security Agents just doing their jobs then being sued by these illegals, how can they do their jobs under these conditions?
Mexican drug gangs turn to beheadings
I want reps who represent Americans first, not the Euros or the rest of the world, afterall it is OUR future on the line. I feel sad and angry that our reps don’t seem to give a damn about us, they care more about their job security than really fighting for our interests. The corruption on both sides of the aisle is astounding.
Gay Patriot West, I have so much on my mind.
8: But Kevin, why not let the power of government negotiate directly with Big University for lower tuition?
gene- what have the republicans done about any of those things?
The government is the Big University, fella. And that’s why state tuitions are so much lower than private tuition, and it’s why the state should be more involved in medical treatment.
Another key reason – if not the reason – for voting the dems in is fiscal sanity. The reps are like poets on payday: they just throw money at a problem and don’t expect anything in return. The dems will do two things to counteract this lack of civic virtue: (1) pay-go rules (which any conservative should support); and (2) greater oversight of Iraq budgeting. If KBR loses billions of dollars, take it out of their bottom line. It’s time to demand minimal competence.
Doesn’t a Republican congress have to actually act conservative to be regarded as conservative? What counts more – rhetoric and empty promises, or actual behavior, accountability and keeping your word?
The Republicans of this congress have talked the talk, but they simply haven’t walked the walk.
Also, is the Republican’s 2006 Congress anything like the Republican’s 1994 Congress? You’d have a lot of work to do to convince the general public and give full examples that would show that parallel.
The dems will do two things to counteract this lack of civic virtue: (1) pay-go rules (which any conservative should support); and (2) greater oversight of Iraq budgeting. If KBR loses billions of dollars, take it out of their bottom line.
The problem with 1) is that the Democrats’ version of “pay as you go” is to enact a program and hike taxes to pay for it.
Democrats want health insurance for the poor? Fine. Let their billionaires like Soros and their millionaire trust-fund babies like Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, and Reid buy it for them, instead of taxing working Americans.
As for 2), the single biggest area of fraud and waste in the government is not private contractors — but entitlement programs. Estimated fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid annually is estimated to be approximately 10% of expenditures — over $50 billion dollars in 1996.
But unfortunately, Pelosi and her fellow puppets won’t admit or do anything about that, instead trying to blame “corporations” for her constitutency’s lies and abuses of the entitlement system.
And this — this is hilarious:
The government is the Big University, fella. And that’s why state tuitions are so much lower than private tuition,
Yes — because government can set tuition prices itself.
But unfortunately, that would mean that teachers’ unions and administrators, all of whom vote Democratic, would have to cut costs themselves. For instance, the Democratic administration of the University of California system loves to give themselves enormous pay increases, low interest loans or free loans to even their secretaries, redecorate their houses and hire their lovers, and the like — all of which ultimately translates into higher tuition costs for students.
So what’s Pelosi’s solution? Raise government grants for students — to cover the cost of the corruption, fraud, and waste built into the system.
That’s better than enact a program and borrow from the Chinese to pay for it.
Re: fraud: there are certainly many areas a democratic congress could set up effective oversight.
(forgot to add: the republican reaction to pay-as-you-go demonstrates that they’re never going to cut spending, and don’t even intend to. Whenever the program is brought up, the immediate reaction isn’t to say cuts will have to be made, but taxes will have to go up. As with so many things, the GOP is all talk.)
Off Dan’s topic – though perhaps indirectly on-topic:
On this board and elsewhere, we have often heard lefties screeching that America has descended into authoritarian government. (Andrew Sullivan’s weird new bullshit version of it: that habeus corpus somehow doesn’t exist anymore.)
When challenged by astute questioners, such lefties are characteristically unable to name a single right that anyone (other than terrorists) has lost. As the lefties comfortably type anti-Bush slogans to their hearts’ content.
Now the ACLU has conceded the point. After three years of effort, the ACLU has officially dropped all challenge to the Patriot Act. On the grounds that, in the ACLU’s view, indeed there is nothing there they could complain about. (h/t Instapundit)
#4 #11 Ah but the Republicans have addressed some of the weightey issues I listed. Border security, the National Guared on the border has dropped illegals entering by 80% by some counts. The 700 mile fence is also another improvement. I think it will be funded or the Republicans will suffer in ’08. On Iraq and the Islamofascists, we’ve freed 25 million women and girls from unspeakable tyranny. And killed over 4,000 terrorists by their own count. That’s 4,000 not flying planes into your local skyscrapers. W proposed Social Security reform and couldn’t get pansey Dems or Reps to negotiate long term solutions. Iran, I’d take John Kerry’s solution for most things and let the Euros tackle that one.
So we need to re elect Republicans to continue with adult solutions to complex problems.
Calarato, they dropped a challenge to the Patriot Act. Others are pending. Substantively, your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of how limited government and rights are interrelated in our system.
Well, from one form of unspeakable tyranny. Now, instead of being tortured and massacred by a secular dictator, they’re being tortured by Shiite theocrats. Clearly, progress is afoot. After all, we’re fighting the war on secularism, right?
Oh.
It doesn’t matter, Dan. Regardless of who wins control of one or both Houses if the polls indicate anything it’s that they will do so by a very small margin. This means that should the Dems win, for example, they will have great difficulty passing anything over Bush’s veto (assuming he remembers having one). If the Repubs win the rules of the Senate will stymie things even more than it has been. Watch the level of partisanship increase on both sides as they jockey for position in 08. We’re going to have to wait 2 more years to see how things are going to go. Right now this is but a mere trifle.
#24 No, if the leftists win the House on November 7th I want all the problems fixed. I’ll give em a reasonable amount of time but the Democrats will have to deliver on their promises. They can start with stemcell cures for diseases. On November 8th I will start my daily count to days until Democrat Nirvanna.
If the dems are able to rise above rank incompetence, it’ll be an improvement over the status quo.
John, you make a good point. I think you’re right that whoever wins will do so by a small margin — and this could lead to much gridlock, which is not necessarily bad for the country.
#23 – According to Yahoo, yes, the ACLU is maintaining one other challenge as regards national security letters.
jpe, FYI – substantively, your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the interrelationship between general assertions you may feel like making and the need to provide some kind of detail, explanation or evidence for your comments to have meaning or value.
I know this won’t be popular here, but I think it’s quite relevant: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.pitts29oct29,0,2592960.story?track=mostemailedlink
#4: Not to me. Not a single one of these things would trump personal freedom and autonomy in my value system. Heck, drunk drivers kill more people in a few months in the US than terrorism ever has, but that doesn’t mean I’d accept sobriety check-points every few miles, or breathalyzers in every car. I’m sure they’d dramatically reduce the death toll, but I’ll be damned if I’d live in that kind of world.
#25: 24 No, if the leftists win the House on November 7th I want all the problems fixed. I’ll give em a reasonable amount of time but the Democrats will have to deliver on their promises. They can start with stemcell cures for diseases. On November 8th I will start my daily count to days until Democrat Nirvanna.
I agree with you, I truly do. And if the GOP wins, I want to see cabinet departments eliminated, budgets slashed, education de-federalized, and government in general dramatically reduced. That’s what I believed would happen in 1994 (wonder how I got that idea?), but it was all baloney.
Fact is, there’s not a single politician at the federal level who has even the slightest bit of integrity. Let’s focus on getting different choices entirely, as soon as possible.
Kevin –
The costs of higher education have risen at about the same rate as healthcare. However, in the field of healthcare, many revolutionary treatments now exist where none were available 20 years ago. There has been no similar revolution in higher education – the quality is the same or less, but costs are roughly quadrupled what they were 20 years ago.
Why is it unreasonable to suggest that the costs of higher education be brought under control, before we have yet another government subsidy for it?
forgot to add: the republican reaction to pay-as-you-go demonstrates that they’re never going to cut spending, and don’t even intend to.
So, in other words, all the Democrats’ screaming about “spending cuts” this past budget cycle were nothing.
Figures.
I know this won’t be popular here, but I think it’s quite relevant:
Oh, for pete’s sake; this whole flap over “stay the course” shows why the White House’s one major failing is message discipline.
Anyone who sails or flies knows that “staying the course” doesn’t mean you never change direction; you steer around obstacles, you head slightly off to catch favorable winds or avoid thunderstorms, but throughout the process, you’re following the “course” to your destination.
We are doing similarly in Iraq. Our goal since going in has been a free, democratic, stable, and peaceful country, with no more Saddam, and we have made it clear that we will keep our troops there until that is managed. How we adjust our forces, our aid, etc. will vary, but that’s the whole idea; we are “staying the course” to that final destination.
The reason Dems are trying to spin this is because they have been nailed with “cut-and-run”; people are finally realizing that Dems don’t have the spine or the will to defend our country, and prefer to pander diplomatically and toady for countries who calmly take advantage of the fact. The Clinton era diplomacy is an excellent example; European countries learned that they could continue to trade with Saddam, send materials to anti-US countries, and in general enrich themselves at our expense, and we wouldn’t object; indeed, we would even put ourselves into debt to fight their wars for them (aka Kosovo).
The government is the Big University, fella. And that’s why state tuitions are so much lower than private tuition, and it’s why the state should be more involved in medical treatment.
State tuitions are so much lower than private tuitions because people like me are forced at gunpoint to help pay for the education of other people’s children. This is immoral at the core, because it’s the responsibility of parents to provide the things their children need to become happy and successful adults, including education. This is socialism, and I want to put an end to it, not expand it into other areas.
gene- those weren’t exactly bullet proof defenses of the republicans performance on your issues. quite the contrary. and who are these 25 million we freed?
Pointing out Republican “big government, big spending” tendancies really isn’t relevant unless the Democrats are suggesting that they offer an alternative.
They could, actually, and it would probably work for them. There’s plenty of people disappointed with the Republicans, but the things they are disappointed about the Democrats are every bit as bad at.
#33: Anyone who sails or flies knows that “staying the course” doesn’t mean you never change direction; you steer around obstacles, you head slightly off to catch favorable winds or avoid thunderstorms, but throughout the process, you’re following the “course” to your destination.
That article is not about policy per se, but about an attempt to claim that history didn’t happen. If Bush says “we were never ‘stay the course’,” that is simply not true, and it’s disturbing that he wants people to believe that he never uttered those words. It is reminiscent of Clinton’s equally disturbing attempts to claim he didn’t lie under oath during the Lewinsky scandal. To me, the issue isn’t Bush exclusively; it’s the total lack of allegiance to truth that characterizes the whole two-party establishment.
#35 Damn lester, read up man. In afganistan prior to being liberated women and girls were not allowed to attend school. Any school. They weren’t allowed to read books in public or run for office. They had to be totally covered and if they looked at a man they faced a public whipping. If a womans husband was killed in an accident, the wife, not allowed to work or support herself, was forced to beg on the street corners. With children in tow. In Iraq women and girls faced similar fates.Sadaam’ s own sons would rape any woman they felt like. Sometimes in front of their husband as a further disgrace. You know the abject worthlessness that meant for the women in the muslem world? Now in Iraq, women represent 25% of the elected Congress. Elected by the people. Cell phones, computers and sat dishes will make freedom for woman even stronger in the future. When I mention 25 million, I’m refering to only the woman and girls of Iraq and Afganistan. Liberals are suppose to care for minorities and the down and out. I thought I was expressing a thread we could all agree on.
Well, Gene, you know the Dhimmicrap libtard rationale – even if it is good for everyone else, it is bad if it makes Bush look good.
Don’t even try to explain to lester. You can’t get water out of a stone.
Regards,
Peter H.
gene- 2003 called, they want their talking points back. iraq has messed the bed and afghanistan is headed in that direction. no one’s free
Unfortunately for you, lester, “headed in that direction” means that they are NOT the same as they were under the Taliban and Saddam — and that they are MORE free.
Of course, we understand why you’re trying to minimize this; you hate Bush and the Bush administration for setting free millions of people from barbarous regimes, because their doing so was so quite obviously correct.
Yours is nothing but a feeble, spiteful hatred, trying to tear down a victory that happened from actions you opposed because you don’t want to admit that you were wrong.
Show us the depth of your anti-bush hatred, lester; admit that you would rather that the millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan still be under the control of Saddam and the Taliban, with all the human rights abuses therein and utter lack of freedom, than see the Bush administration succeed in liberating them.
you think Iraqis like bush?
Could someone please tell me what being conservative means. I know cutting taxes but then they borrow into deficit. I know it is the so called war on terror, so how is that going? I know it is supposed to mean local rule but, Bush et all have trampled on that. I know that it is supposed to mean a balanced budget, you get the drift. That leaves conservatives with pro life and anti gate issues. Please tell me this is not true.
Larry
#44 – Larry, I for one am not anti-gate. I believe that everyone should have a gate. Preferably attached to their fence.
Regards,
Peter H.