Do you remember what scandal, in 1994, "brought down the corrupt"

[zbdent]

politicians in Washington? The scandal which led to the "Republican Landslide" of November 1994, handing the power of the House and Senate over to the Repukes for the first time since a two-year stint in the fifties?

I'll give you a moment to think back . . .








































Yes, it was "writing checks". The congressmen (and women - don't forget Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio) were writing checks where they didn't have the money in the account to cover it (well, until a few days later).

That was the "level of corruption" which allowed the Repukes to show how awful the Dem control was of the levels of government.

Outrage was expressed in the "liberal media", and that swept a bunch of Repukes into office. Yes, "term limits" issues were a part, along with the dissatisfaction with Bill Clinton.

But one of the real big things that got to people was the fact that "Dems" were writing bad checks, and the government was allowing them to get away with it without "bouncing" them. Of course, banks allowed a lot of people to do the same thing - you just had to have enough money in the bank in other accounts to qualify for "overdraft protection". In fact, the one year I was working in a bank, the employees had that protection on their accounts, too.

So, remember, the "level of corruption" was set pretty damn low in comparison to what the Republicans are getting away with these days (Frist, Ney, DeLay, W, Abramoff, etc.)

Oh, for a real "liberal media" . . .

[okieinpain]

1. that's not set low. that's something the sheeple can understand.

[ktowntennesseedem]

3. Ding, ding, ding! You win a cookie!

The common citizen understands overdraft fees and bouncing checks. But blind trusts and campaign finance laws and such are way over their heads.

[okieinpain]

6. thank you so much. that's a good way to start the day.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I'm afraid that most Republican voters will not see the actual

crony network as a problem, since they condone those practices at the local level. The schmoozers are everywhere. They're in private schools, they're on the soccer fields, they're at the churches, they're in the Rotary Clubs, they are on the board of commissioners. You name it. Crony capitalism has been around for a while, but it's only in the last twenty years that they started to knock out the competition that kept them in check. Like the civil servants, and like the media.

[pansypoo53219]

4. wait a minute

didn't the democrats lose control because they did the most evil of things. raised taxes on the rich? and started the move towards fiscal responsibility?

and low and behold the economy came back from the brink of fiscal disaster. and in 2000 the debt was being paid down, the deficit had been eliminated?

[spaniard]

7. no, no... wait a minute!

To hear many on DU tell the tale, the Democrats lost because of some unknown unnamed yet completely "factual" something or another the DLC did.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Actually, Mary Rose Oakar lost her reelection bid in 1992

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000001

[madderthanhell]

8. No, it was the Clinton gun ban that did it. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Clinton himself said that caused some members on Congress to lose

their seats.

[Toots]

10. I guess you are referring to automatic weapons ban

What did it was the complete takeover of the Media by right wing whackos. Nothing the Democrats did were specifically responsible but a constant barrage from the likes of Rush et all.

[madderthanhell]

11. You apparently know very little about that gun ban...

as it had NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly controlled for many, many years, and were banned from production for civilian use in 1986.

The gun ban from 1994, banned rifles that are not unlike hunting rifle except for certain cosmetic features. Rifle that had more than two of these features were banned. These features were:

1. Protruding pistol grip (allows a more comfortable grip angle when fired from the shoulder)

2. Flash suppressor (reduces the amount of flash that is emitted from the muzzle the the weapon is fired, keeps the shooter from being blinded when shooting in low light)

3. Adjustable length stock (allows the rifle to fit users of different sizes and arm lengths)

4. Attachment lug under the barrel (allows attachment of accessories such as a bipod or grenade launcher) *grenade launchers themselves are not available to civilians

None of these features made the rifles more powerful, more lethal, or allowed rounds to be fired at a higher rate. It was simply an attempt to ban "scary" looking rifle. It didn't work of course, the manufacturers simply made rifles that only had two of the features, not all of them. These rifles looked and functioned just like the banned rifles. All that was accomplished by the ban was pissing off the millions of gun owners in this country.


Banned rifle:


Not-banned rifle:


Big difference, huh? Was that worth losing many seats in both houses?

[spaniard]

12. so do you agree that the ban was a big factor in the '94 losses?

There is an article that I read that debunks a favorite "DU reason" for the Dems losses in '94 but doesn't cover any specific events that may have caused them beyond corruption and cyclical reasons.

I would love to see this topic of the gun ban attributing to the losses explored further.

[madderthanhell]

13. That was my point from the get-go.

Unfortunately, gun-banning is an issue that is near and dear to many Democrats, despite it being a losing proposition.

[spaniard]

14. certainly someone has a study on this

Maybe some polls, etc.

If you find them, I'd like to read them.

[rinsd]

15. A couple of things.....

One is that the check bouncing scandal started gearing up in 1992. And it was widespread, something like 300 members of Congress were involved.

Also if you bounce a check it still costs you in fees and possible penalties that didn't happen.

Overdraft protection is a relatively new thing. I had a checking account in college and I couldn't overdraw it if I tried. When I wrote a bad check it was returned to me, I was nailed by a fee from the bank and a fee from the place of business.

Let's not minimize the scandal and it was pretty arrogant. It also put a spotlight on other practices of favoritism recieved by Congress (ie: parking tickets etc)

43 incumbents were defeated and an additional 52 retired. In 1994 38 were defeated and 26 retired.

This message was blunted somewhat for the 1992 races because GOPers in the Bush cabinet had gotten nailed (including the Dark Lord himself Dick Cheney) but by the time Clinton was President it was free for all.

What this did was help shape the Republican Revolutions message that the Democrats had grown fat and greedy in their constant position of power and that a change was necessary. Part of the back bone to this strategy was term limits which would supposedly prevent Congress critters from getting too comfortable. You add to that the American people's relish for gridlock (differing parties in charge of diferent branches) walla you have the "landslide" that was actually 4 years in the making.