2004 Congressional campaign idea

[trotsky]

I posted this in GD but it scrolled so fast I got whiplash.

In 2004, why don't the Democrats revisit the old 1994 "Contract (on) America" that the Repubs used to retake Congress?

I found a link to it, and took a look:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ContractwithAmerica.html

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

Nope, haven't done that.

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

Nope, not that either.

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

Did they do that? I highly doubt it.

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

I don't think they did this either.

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

Unknown - anybody know?

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

HA HA HA HA HA ohhhh please stop that one's hilarious.

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

Nope.

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Also no.

And then they list a bunch of legislative proposals, and I doubt even half of them were even brought up for debate.

Seriously, this is a big deal! If they rode the Contract (on) America to victory in '94, why can't we use it to take 'em down in '04?

[helleborient]

1. Not a bad thing to bring back up at all....

And we don't want to forget about talking a lot about Newt as well.

[sweetladybug]

2. Sounds good to me

We have to do something to take control back of our country. If we have to, we need to fight fire with fire.

[AWD]

3. Thank you

I will use these bullet points often in my campaign.

[9119495]

4. Great post but how about a contract from Dems?

After all, the thing worked. The Right always says we have no ideas, so lets put them out there:

Health care for all.

A well-funded education for all.

A progressive tax code.

Sensible involvement in foreign affairs and the use of multi-lateral action.

etc. What do you think?

Edit:

And I forgot,

An end to corporate wefare.

Corporate accountability.

Only the best for our troops abroad. (this may suck the wind out of the "you're not patriots" crap.

[trotsky]

5. Great idea.

Point out the failure of Repubs to live up to their contract, and then publish one of our own.

[helleborient]

6. It does bring up though my problems with the first contract....

Namely,

1) The party forces every member to sign on to specific statements and walk lockstep. I think that denies some valuable diversity in opinion in our party.

2) It makes it more difficult to change course when necessary in response to events that could happen in the future.


I much prefer something like a statement of basic principles to a contract. That's way too corporate for my comfort, too.

[NewJerseyDem]

7. They did a few of them

They did number 3 a little bit. I'm not sure if they cut staff but they may have. I do know that they cut the number of committees. However, they only cut a handful like the District of Columbia Committee, Post Office and Civil Service Committee and Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I don't know if they cut any others.

They did put term limits on committee chairmen. Chairmen can only serve as chairmen for 6 years. I really don't think that they banned proxy votes. I'm not sure but it is just impractical to do that. Sometimes, congressmen will have two committee meetings at the same time. How can they be expected to vote at both meetings?

[goobergunch]

8. Actually, they did ban proxy votes in the House

but a lot of members want them reinstated.

Proxy votes are still legal in Senate committees.

[leyton]

9. I agree with helleborient

I agree that a general statement of principles would be a good idea... I also support the idea of a balanced budget amendment.

Does anybody know how the original Contract with America was presented? Was it just a speech by Newt Gingrich? I always imagined a little brochure that someone would hand out.

Here's another idea: if Dems don't like the idea of making all the candidates sign the contract, what if it was just limited to a certain group? For example, what if the five or so Democrats running for open seats in the South had a contract of their own?