Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nationalizing the Congressional elections.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 08:43 PM
Original message
Nationalizing the Congressional elections.
Remember the "Contract with America"? The GOP won the House majority by nationalizing the congressional race. Their Victory dance really had not not so much with a lackluster two first years of the Clint administration as it did with making the case against an entrenched , do-nothing House. It worked!!

Why not do it again?

Its my view that The Dean-Dubya battle sort of stands by itself and is largely about policy (Terrorism and the Economy) and personality.

What if The Dems nationalize the congressional races along the following lines:

1) We will restore fiscal Sanity to the federal budget.
2) We will do something about Education in this country to compete on a global stage and end the "offshoring of High tech" jobs"
3)We will Protect the future by making a College education within the financial risk of all Americans.
4) We will alter the way we pay for Health insurance and put money back in the hands of all families.
5) We will insure that the Greed of a few at the top of the corporate ladder never goes unpunished.
6) We will move effectively to protect Social Security and protect pensions.
7) ???
8) ???
9) ???
10) ???

The Other thing that made the Contract effective is that it had a face at the lead-- "Gingrich". People knew that Gingrich was the leader of the GOP.


Due Respect to Ms. Pelosi....SHe is no Newt Gingrich. No. In order to move people to action the Dems in the House need a unifier and a recognizable face. Some one who would empathize with Americans on Kitchen Table issues.Someone who would have instant national credibi;ity and could move into the Speakership and then move Congress to act.

I submit that there is no Democrat in the house who can do that. I propose that to nationalize the Congressional election, the Dems need someone who is not a member.

You Constitution and history buffs will recall that one need not be a member of the House in order to become Speaker.

There are only two Dems that I can think of who could nationalize the congressional election and who could become "Speaker of the People's House. Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

Can you imagine Bill Clinton taking on Mr. Hastert (who?) in a 90 minute town hall debate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lone Pawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clinton would be wonderful in the House
In a John Quincy Adams sort of way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Regaining Congress is vital
and something we should be working for as much as for the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. That's the kind of creative thinking that we desperately need!
But is there enough time to do it, even if the Dem do-nothings could get off their butts? Part of the Republican success was the lockstep loyalty enforced by Gingrich and DeLay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Pelosi certainly could not get it done
I do not disagree, but that's why an external catalyst needs to emerge and why I don't think we can get to specific in the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. The Contact with America link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavajoRug Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I like the issues you've listed here, but there's a big problem with them
They aren't focused enough.

The 1994 GOP "Contract With America" was not just a laundry list of things that everyone would like to have -- it was a list of specific, concrete pieces of legislation that would be acted upon in a GOP Congress.

We have no chance of following that example unless we include very specific proposals -- like how we intend to keep companies from moving jobs offshore, how we intend to make sure that "greed" does not go unpunished, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Ta mean like term limits? haha
One of the characterstics of the first contract was that it was something that most americans could get behind. My sense is that this only works if you do the same thing here.

ANd wuite honestly ghte Dems have such a big tent that it would be hard to put alot of specificity in without it looking increasingly partisan.

The war cry here is that we have a lboated special interest manipulated Congress and we need radical reform agenda. The argument would seem to be about Congress fiddling while the country burns. The appeal is to populist sentiment the specific.

How you craft more specifiity is tricky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Before Gore or Clinton could become Speaker
The Democrats would need to gain control of the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Well Um yeah
The point was that Clinton or Gore could lead a pre-election Campaign on Kitchen table value, They would spearhead the campaign and thus effectively "run" for speaker Obviously kn one would cast a vote for them but it would be made clear that to Bring on these reforms the voters would have to select a Democratic candidate for the Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Go for it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsN2Wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. Hard to see how Clinton
could be too effective in debating against the "off-shoring" of jobs after pushing for NAFTA, GATT, et al. Under his watch we saw the explosion in our manufacturing going away as companies moved to Mexico, China, Viet Nam or anywhere the labor was cheap (the giant sucking sound). After looking back at your list, I see you only refer to the off-shoring of "High tech" jobs, so never mind. Let the blue-collar workers fend for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I was going for populist sentiment
To me the issue is about the quality of education in the country and not off-shoring per se.

"old labor" jobs are a sticky wicket with no easy solution. Auto and steel industry have problems that are long term and there is no easy solution. I certainly am not suggesting we ignore those issues only that we not make it part of a reform agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
12. Great idea
we need this!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. THe neat thing about this is>>
That the presumptive nominee can easily distance himself from the congressional campaign initiative championed by Clinton should he choose to do so.

I personally think it make sense to do some distancing by simply saying that "well this has never been tried before, but if the Republicans can play games with the normal process in California, Colorado and Texas, I see no reason why we can't challenge their ineffective House Leadership in this manner. Its for the people to decide who shall lead Congress. (Bill Clinton) has his campaign to run and I have mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-04 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. Who's the House Dem Election Committee chair?
Is it still Marty Frost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC