Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

just what the f*** were voters so pissed about in 1994 ???

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:54 PM
Original message
just what the f*** were voters so pissed about in 1994 ???
there is no WAY they could have been anywhere NEAR as pissed as we are now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. some light
The House Bank Scandal and the Assault Weapons Ban from what I know

maybe more issues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. In remember the so-called "bank scandal"....
A big nothing scandal. Congressmen were kiting their paychecks, IIRC. It got plenty of airplay, though. I think the Democratic House Maj. Leader Wright had a scandal, too. He was selling his book to PAC for cash, or something like that. Really BS issues, but the corporate media really helped to sell the story of corruption that helped Gingrinch market the "Contract on America".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. YEP ... WILDLY overplayed ...
the shiite going on with this crew is 100 times worse than the "congressional bank scandal" ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
44. Add to the the Keating 5 & the Post Office Scandal
4 Dems were part of the Keating 5(and of course McCain)

6 Dems were convicted in the bank scandal. That's convicted, not accused.

The Post Office scandal saw Rostenkowski go to prison as well.

" I think the Democratic House Maj. Leader Wright had a scandal, too. He was selling his book to PAC for cash, or something like that"

You'll love this, it was Newtie who hit him hard on this only to face backlash when he had his own book deal.

Also there were allegations that Wright was intervening on behalf of people in the S&L crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
37. "Communism's goal is to exterminate the white race."

I heard an educated man say that within the last month. I kid you not. After I blather on about the above comment for a while, I'll tell you that what people were pissed about back in '94 was "the welfare state".

The man is in his 70's. So, needless to say, he has lived through much of the era in which "communism" was the big, big Scary Thing that our various administrations used to keep us in line.

The stuff about "the white race": I replied that I don't even think that "race" is a legitimate scientific concept. Seriously, would someone explain to me how it is that people are classified into "races", yet when I was being taught the classifications of living things in school, I remember that it went like this: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species? (I know someone will correct me if I left any sub-sets out, or if I messed up the order.)

But even if I left any sub-sets out of that list, or messed up the order of the groups, I am positive that way back when I was taught biology, among all those classifications, there was NO "race". Not even when you left out the plants and dealt only with the animals.

At one time, I tried to analogize it to breeds of dogs. Maybe different human races are like different breeds of dogs.... ? Um... well... uh... whatever...

The man who made the comment was well-trained in social sciences, but to my knowledge, he has not studied practical sciences (you know, stuff like physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) since he was an undergraduate. Maybe, since high school.

My point is, what the hell IS a "race"? I have doubts about the whole concept. So this leaves doubt in my mind about this vaunted group that "communism wants to exterminate".

The welfare state: See, this was how it was, see. Our Government was ROBBING us middle class (white) people and giving our money to people who hated us and wanted to shoot us in the grocery store parking lot, so those people could "breed" and produce millions and millions and millions and millions (EEEAAAAHHHH!!!) of people of "dark races" and Amurica was going to be all-black by, I dunno, by the turn of the century, see. OH MY GOD!!!

Yeah, boy. Those dark people, they were really cleanin' up. Why, in the state where I worked in the welfare office, they got a whole $120 per month for a mother and one child! It wasn't enough to pay the rent, though, see. And to get subsidized housing, you had to wait months, maybe a year, on a waiting list. But in the meantime, if the mother took up with some man so she could share incomes with him so she could, like, maybe afford to pay the rent SOMEWHERE, then her welfare (called "Aid to Dependant Children") got cut off.

Wow, yeah, they (and, um, those lighter-complected people who ALSO incidentally got welfare checks) were really livin' high back then before the coming of Welfare Reform.

Anyhow, that's what I remember from the 70's and 80's. People in the middle class waxed indignant about "the welfare state" all the fucking time.

Little did we know that the welfare state of the new century would be one in which financial giants' "check" would be a bit more than $120 per month. Try... oh, I dunno... billions--billions in FREE MONEY to international bankers and other rich people. Now THAT'S a real welfare state!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well half of America was pissed off that Bill Clinton took office in 1993.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Th dems trying to bring universal health care in n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. I always thought that was the main issue, in addition
Gingrich and the repukes lied their asses off, they are in complete breach of contract now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catzies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Don't forget they hated him for raising their taxes.
Even though it obviously strengthened the economy, what with having money to pay your bills, i.e., "Tax & spend."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
47. WINNER!!!
I think this was the "big story." Bill Clinton AND HIS WIFE (don't forget how Hillary was vilified) tried to "socialize" health care. I kept hearing statements like "do you really want the government to provide health care?" and "Remember the last time you called an office of the government? Remember how long you had to wait? Remember how rude the government employee was?" and on and on... It was very anti-government.

Some didn't like the influence Hillary was having on the process. I saw bumper stickers that read, "Impeach Clinton...and her husband."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
51. and daring to sign the Family Leave Act. Very Unamerican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
66. If only they had, but the result was an unworkable, un-passable,
corporate welfare plan that made everybody mad, truly a blunder of monumental proportions.

So, we had a plethora of bipartisan scandals, politiwhores were going to jail left and right, Clinton pissed off the unthinking masses with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy that also blew our support among the gay communities. In fact, I can't think of any group that the Clinton administration didn't piss off in the first year.

Gingrich & Co. played it perfectly and the Democrats rolled over like a two-bit whore in a video arcade. The Dems felt betrayed and stayed home, the re :puke: base was fired up and turned out in droves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. They Were Both Pissed And Hopeful
They were pissed about Clinton's flaming triangulations (i.e., "don't ask, don't tell", HillaryCare, ...) and hopeful that the Rethugs actually articulated a plan.

People now are just pissed at specific Republicans - they still like Republican ideas. This will remain the case until Democrats:
1. Actually have ideas (other than to suck less than the Republicans)
2. Learn to articulate these actual ideas (we need the "good" versions of the evil Rove and evil OxyRush)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. If I might elaborate
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:59 PM by Art_from_Ark
Led by such demagogues as Rush Limbaugh,Talking Head Radio, which in the past had been limited mainly to late night AM stations, was becoming increasingly influential among a large segment of the American population, who were being fed a daily diet of lies and innuendos about President Clinton and his vision for the country. It didn't help matters when the young Clinton started off on the wrong foot by implementing the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, which immediately received scorn and ridicule from the right wing. Then there was Hillary's ill-fated attempt to hammer out a national health care plan, behind closed doors, which was ridiculed as being "too secretive", and "too socialistic". The fiasco in Somalia was also blamed on Clinton, even though it was actually a "gift" from his predecessor, Bu$h Senior. With the Fairness Doctrine abolished by Reagan, and the talking heads rousing the rabble, the Republicans took advantage of this manufactured malaise to take control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

As for articulating ideas, unfiltered messages I have received directly from the Democratic Party have presented many ideas. But all too often today, before they reach the masses these ideas are distorted beyond recognition by the cacophony of media talking heads posing as journalists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Well stated.
Corporate media is no friend of a Democratic agenda. I'm still trying to figure out what the Republican agenda is, except for the part about privitizing public assets, cutting taxes on the top 3%, and starting endless wars of profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. and
turn the US into the Marianas, ruin the public school system, turn everybody into pill popping prozac cases, along with invade everybody's private life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #26
62. Another part of the Republican agenda is to create as many wedge issues
as they can-- "Guns, God, and Gays"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
40. I nearly cried with joy when I heard someone on the Diane Rehm
show yesterday say "Oh no, the Democrats have GREAT ideas, but no one is paying attention."

FINALLY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hillary wasn't simpering
quietly in a corner like former First Ladies but was actually trying to spearhead some changes in healthcare. Silly girl.

It was felt that the DEMs had too much power - controlling the Congress and the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Good post
Hillary was first hated by the Democrats. Too aggressive for a woman first lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. H had a career too.
The role didn't fit her and she got lampooned for it. Not sure that I would like her as a president but she has smarts and ideas and I am glad she is able to put them to good use in the Senate.

Now, if she would just get off her support of the War I would like her better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
41. She was also a First Lady who spoke her own mind. She made a
comment about not sitting home baking cookies (when there was a HUGE amount of work to be done and she saw herself as a partner/helpmate to her husband - which, um, is, um, kinda what a lot of us wives are...), she had the smarts and the creativity and ingenuity and abilities and the willingness to work hard. Whenever she came up in conversation, the Clinton people presented them as a two-fer - "buy one, get one free."

For myself, I liked the idea, since I'm not one to stay home baking cookies, either. But she did not fit the Stepford Wife stereotype that so many other First Ladies did, so people were just terribly threatened by her. The less enlightened of the public always seems somehow threatened by that. And I could never understand that. I mean, shit, if you have a capable, brilliant, willing, and inventive person available to you - who's willing to help and roll up the ol' sleeves and tackle some really serious problems we all face head-on, instead of just paying lip service to them - why on earth should we turn our back on such a resource? Especially when it's being offered to us on a plate? It seemed to me then, as now, that our problems are so severe and complicated that we need all the brainpower and capability and willingness to try different approaches (since the old ones haven't worked). Who cares who it comes from? Who cares? Well, the knuckledraggers did. And Post 18 (I think) that described the rise of rush and soon enough all the rush-wannabes as the Fairness Doctrine faded into extinction was spot on. You had a combination of this threatening figure and some mad-dog, lying, deceitful voices hammering hour after hour after hour, day after day after day, virtually UNCHALLENGED (nobody else on the air trying to get any different message out), and a lot of people who felt threatened by that threatening figure. lamebaugh gave a voice to all the shitty, resentful, probably guilt-ridden, jealous knuckledraggers who felt somehow personally insulted and diminished by a bright, accomplished woman like Hillary. I think she just reminded them about their own failures.

I've also read a lot about the phenomemon of the so-called "angry white male," angry because "he" feels disenfranchised, diminished, and dumped on, losing jobs to minorities and women, losing that self-esteem thing about being the sole provider and breadwinner (so the little woman can stay home), meantime the factories are closing and the immigrants are coming and the paycheck - if there still is one - can't cover all the bills. So the little woman has to go out and get a job to supplement the family income. And there goes the single-breadwinner's ego again. His efforts aren't enough, so he has to get help from a GIRL. I don't personally know many men who seem threatened to this extent. Most of the guys I know are liberated and enlightened. But there's been a lot written and studied about it as social change and upheaval has moved through the decades and the nation's economics. And lamebaugh and, soon enough, his many copy-cats, gave a voice to all that. They preyed on that and exploited that deep-down hurt. They got rich and powerful doing so. Funny enough, though. As they rose into success and wealth, they didn't bother to take this crowd of angry, resentful, depressed, disillusioned people with them, did they?

I've read quite a bit lately about the perceived appeal of the republi-CON party. Part of that perceived appeal is not to the already rich, but to everybody else who wishes they were rich, and who can be easily convinced that, one day, they'll be rich, too - if they just keep voting republi-CON. But they're not rich, and their interests fit in more with Democrats, but they'd rather hitch their wagons to pie-in-the-sky dreams that the elite "haves" allow to trickle down to the great unwashed. The sad reality is, these people will never get rich believing the lies and distortions and flat-out fictions spun by the republi-CONS. The republi-CONS are only in it for themselves. They don't want to share. They don't want to help anybody too much unless there's something additional in it for them. They only want more - for themselves. They don't want to help the little guy up to their level. They want to secure their own privileges inside those ritzy gated communities that keep the little guy out (to CONSERVE - the root word built into the term "conservative"), and lock in all of their wealth against the taxes that fund EVERYTHING in our country, and the way it looks out for those who have less. Which is a large part of what we have a government for, in the first place, IMO. To handle the things individuals can't do for themselves. Their attitude as a party is IGMFU - I Got Mine, F-U. Screw the little guy. As long as he isn't mooching off the system (and my tax money).

lamebaugh gave a voice to that, though, and it really resonated, ESPECIALLY when you factor in a First Couple who represented a really modern way of running a household - where both partners work, both partners are truly equal participants - and sometimes the woman makes more than the man does. There are co-equals, not one person in a superior position and the other in an inferior position. I like the idea of co-equals. So does my husband. If I'm accomplished or smart or a happening woman, he's not a bit threatened by that. Hell, he gets the benefit of whatever I might contribute. I'm betting that most Democrats understand this. That's just how we are, and what we are. Our egos aren't so delicate that we have to build ourselves up by having somebody else below us in a lesser position.

That, IMO, also contributed to the initial appeal of bush and his cutesy nicknames and his down-home, reg'lar guy humor - and the "he's a guy I could go have a beer with" schtick. But you'll notice that all those cutesy nicknames and down-home, reg'lar guy humor was usually mean-spirited, lots of little put-downs and poking fun at someone else's expense, their height, their baldness, their looks, their weight, their style of dress, their ability to speak another language than English (like when David Gregory asked a French leader a question in French, at a joint press conference with bush, and bush got his nose out of joint about that). They don't like people smarter than they are, or more accomplished, so they try to chop 'em down. Feeds into the pathology of the angry disenfranchised - who's easily fooled into hanging onto those pie-in-the-sky republi-CON promises that you, too, will be rich like us some day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stubtoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #41
67. You got it with that "Angry White Male" phenomenon, Calimary.
It was stoked by hate radio, and the likes of Newt Gingrich and Limbaugh. It's still around today, but perhaps some of these "angry" guys are beginning to see they've been had all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
69. yes, indeed - Hillary was demonized by the
VRW conspiracy from day one. I can remember my RW mother & brother complaining that 'no one elected HER!'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. 10% unemployment and national debt
It really was the economy stupid and yes people were very pissed off.

Republicans were going gangbusters with the liberal hatchet job too. Rush Limbaugh had his own tv show and wasn't quite as batshit as he is now. All the tired old smear tactics worked on boomers that had never heard them before and young voters who didn't know JFK. The JFK of their generation was Reagan, puke I know. But it was the economy and things were more desperate then because you couldn't even find a job to bitch about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. ten percent?
I don't think so:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Excuse me 7.5
It was 10% just a few years before, wages hadn't recovered, and the economy was still stagnant. People were pissed and it was still the economy in 1994.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #19
32. It was more than the percentage - - people had been unemployed for years
There was an uptick in employment since the horrible Bush I years, but not enough. And many of the (especially middle class) folks who were unemployed had been so for two or more years. I personally was unemployeed from 1990 to 1994 - - and the job I finally found in 1994 was a minimum wage gig.

You also have to add in the very strong anti-professional-politician undercurrent that has been present in national politics since at least Watergate. It ebbs and flows but it's always there - - how else can you explain a nutcase like Ross Perot (I'm quitting - - no I'm back in the race - - no, I'm quitting!) taking almost 20% of the vote in 1992 - - and over 8% in 1996, when he wasn't even running!

The real genius of the right has been to harness that anti-professional-politician feeling to elect professional politicans (and professional pols who would be the first ones tossed out of office if there ever was a real house cleaning).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Yeah, I lived it too
It wasn't as bad as trying to find a job in 1980, but good paying work was a lot tougher. Of course, it's even worse now. Some months we don't make any more than we did in 1986, and we had a tough time making ends meet then. And yeah there's jobs now, but there are way more minimum wage jobs than even then. Every time Republicans get into office, the stock market goes up and wages go down - but then that's why the stock market goes up. Would be nice if people would connect that particular set of dots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
52. That was Bush41's legacy. And we actually measure nemplyment back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. Look at "The Contract With America" for clues:
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:05 PM by flowomo
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ContractwithAmerica.html


Contract with America

1994


As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

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

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

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

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

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

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

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

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT

An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT

No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT

"Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT

A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
38. On the surface that POS sounded good to many Americans...
too bad they didn't dig deeper and use the brain in their heads instead of trusting the neo-CON's "sound bites". They've held most of the power since and have darn near destroyed this country.

Thank you for posting that. It's been many years since I've read it, it ticked me off back then and knowing now what the neo-CONs have done makes me even more so. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. maybe NAFTA too...EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. Clinton's very 1st move was to openly allow gays in the military,
as he promised them he would during his campaign. The media hyped that big and it upset the usual (large)cast of suspects. Then he appointed his wife to chair a panel looking into universal health care. Strike Two, as per the corporate owned media & the GOP.

I personally support both initiatives, but thought at the time he could have accomplished both goals without being so in-your-face to the conservative masses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DocSavage Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I was
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:23 PM by DocSavage
on active duty then. You cannot even imagine what the lifer thought of Bill Clinton then. Social engineering the military is a tough thing to do, and sometimes not a very popular thing either. And don't ask, don't tell did not allow open gay relationships. All it did was supposedly stop the witch hunts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
64. I wonder what the lifer you referred to would think of Clinton now.
And how that assessment would compare to one of bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. Bill Clinton stopped the neo-clown plan for their rise to power.
Behind the driving lust for a whole country to carry on the dribble down voodoo economics of ronnie raygun were the budding talents of rush limpbugger and his cohorts, with their constant haranguing and lying.

The house banking scandal did not amount to very much, but the anger surrounding John Kerry's exposure of international bank fraud, with its republican criminals, as well as the exposure of Bush sr's and raygun's complicity in Iran/contra, which should have gotten them both impeached, was common knowledge and made a lot of people unhappy.

A lot of diehard dumbass warriors from the VietNam conflict were sure that it was democrats who stopped the war and brought down tricky Dick Nixon and they had vowed revenge.

This lacks most of the juicy details but it's a beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. Media conditioned too many voters to believe the crap
Lots of hot button issues. Blaming taxes on welfare queens and straw man agruements to make winger knees jerk.

Rush ruled the airwaves and the GOP told Americans they were over taxed.

All lies all the time. And Newt was teaching the methods of Goebbels. 'Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it' sort of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. TAXES
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:22 PM by fuzzyball
& Gays in military
& socialized health care

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. Slow economy, Democratic scandals, failed health care plan, higher
taxes, gun control, gays in the military, etc... It was not a good year to be a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
20. NAFTA, weapons ban, check writing scam in Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
36. Did'nt NAFTA pass after 1994?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. It was signed into law in Jan 1994.
It is one the primary reasons that Todd Tiahrt is my Rep now. Dan Glickman voted for NAFTA and the unions abandonded him. I was a senior in high school. It was the only time I ever remember my dad talking about politics--and he said Glickman sold out the working man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
21. I always thought that their misleading term limits pledge . . .

had a lot to do with them taking congress.

a pledge many of them have broken, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #21
61. No kidding. Right now my rep. is 300% over the term he promised in '94.
His eighth year in congress I remember him being asked by a reporter about what ever happened to his promise to only stay in office for two terms. He bristled at the question and said "Look, if the voters want me out, they'll vote me out."

That was in '02, and he's running again this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
22. I hate to say it, but it was the tax increases
But what should they have expected after twelve years of Reagonomics?
Reagan and Bush spent all the fracking money

Funny how that piece of shit Gingrich didn't mention that part.

It just goes to show me that the American people, as a whole, are dumb.
Individuals are smart, but cripes, the populace goes wherever the shepherds tell them to go.

Even if it's right off a cliff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Singular73 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. A new era has begun
Post 9/11, ALL of our leaders, for better or worse, have gotten a LOT more slack.

People wont be so pissy, after the suffering we have endured over the last 5 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
46. AND, the cycle IS going to repeat itself ...
The Ds ARE going to get back into power, this fall or in 2008 with the white house ... And, they ARE going to start to tell the american people the harsh truth AND take the shit steps to START to clean the mess up ... AND, the conservatives are going to go ape shit, distort what is going to be done, say SEE WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE TAX AND SPEND or whatever mind boggling crap they come up with ... Things will level out, the country will get complacent again, and cycle will repeat itself ... They will do the small goverment nonsense, get into power, pork it up and create a new mess ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IamyourTVandIownyou Donating Member (446 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
24. More Criminals
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. this is nothing
compared to the warmongering lying thieves now occupying the White House
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
29. media was depicting all dems in congress as crooks b/c of banking scandal
--Clinton never really got a press honey-moon. I always thought media were so pro Clinton in 92 b/c they were aware of marital problems (Bill + Hilary discussed it all on TV) AND each reporter just knew s/he would be the one to scoop a major scandal like Watergate. (I thought this almost as soon as Bill was in.)

A MAJOR initial fault of Clinton's was that he got off to a rocky start. Some of his first cabinet picks were destroyed in senate confirmation hearings. Remember how Cheney had everything ready to go so that as soon as W was in office they started undoing everything Clinton had done (environment, etc)? and setting up energy task force? and classifying Bush I's papers as well as Clintons? etc?

Also

--1 student told me democrats had been in control of congress his whole life; he wanted to see if republicans would do better. A year or so later he expressed some regrets.

--Also after a year or so, another student ranted on and on about the republican representative she had helped elect. She was black and furious that Steve Largent was saying govt should get out of welfare etc and let churches handle it; no way do they have enuff money, she said. I reminded her I'd told her what the probable result of republicans in power would be; she just nodded and groaned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
33. A great question!
I don't think it was so much that the people were looking for an alternative "Republican revolution" as the Democrats were just turned off by the direction Clinton and the DLC were taking the Democratic Party. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Clinton's first two years were very liberal.
If Democrats were pissed about him being too moderate, we should never be in power again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. Whaaaaa??????
Instituting a tax increase on the rich, formenting a national health care policy, changing the militray exclusion of gay people(though thru the lamnetable and unsatisfying don't ask don't tell)....where were Democrats "turned off" because of Clinton?

Perhaps it could have more to do with the Keating 5 (4 of which were Democrats), the banking scandal, the post office scandal etc.

My roommate actually wrote his master thesis on mistrust in government looking at these Congressional scandals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
45. Power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely
before there were Gingrich and Hastert, there was Jim Wright.

And the guy from Chicago - cannot remember his name - who chaired the appropriation committee.

Controlling Congress for 40 years we've had our share of corrupt and ossified politicians (we still have some of them, people in their 80s who don't know when to quit)

If we do take control of Congress, I hope that our Representatives will remember the lesson of 1994.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
48. Supposedly, there were a lot of "Angry White Men" who felt
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 01:43 PM by Totally Committed
the Democratic Party was "rotten to the core" with corruption, and sent a bunch of Republicans to Washington to "reform" our governement and clean it up. Personally, I think that was just the year when they had enough Republicans in positions to finally effect the elections, and "take over". I think it had been being planned for years, and Newt was chosen to usher the changing of the guards in. They did a good job, didn't they? :sarcasm:


TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #48
63. Angry white men have totally fucked up this country
and should never be allowed to hold office again.

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
49. The attack on universal health care brought out the repukes in huge
numbers. Hillary was in charge of the health care initiative and that really pissed them off. Also the Dems stayed home and did did not bother to vote. The repugs had their hypocritical contract with America and said that they would change everything in l00 days. It was a huge PR success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
50. Gun control was one issue which angered many voters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Bingo!
The fact that Clinton signed a law banning a type of firearm that had been in civilian hands for almost 100 years was just too much for some people to take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. It was a joke
It wasn't even a firearms ban, it banned cosmetic features and the actual weapon was still available for sale, it just couldn't have certain combinations of things like folding stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs. Once we get a decent majority they won't be able to resist the temptation and will maybe try for an actual firearms ban this time.

These things run in cycles anyway, the Democrats will get the majority back and waste the opportunity, just as the Republicans have done and the Democrats did before them and the Republicans did before them......etc and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. A larger number of 2006 Dem candidates are opposed to the ban
We've got at least four Democratic candidates down here in Texas who are on record as saying they oppose the semi-auto ban. There's more, but that's a start.

http://www.a2dems.net/campaign2006
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
68. Yet the NRA convinced many of its members otherwise
And those members, many of whom were union members, voted against Congressmen who supported the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
56. Yeah, let's analyze the top reasons
1. Pissed about losing to Clinton period- Clinton leaves office w/ 66% approval rating

2. Universal Health Care- Today there are over 46 million uninsured and most health care experts agree a universal system in some form is the only thing that can save our trainwreck of a health care system

3. Tax increase for wealthy- led to one of the greatest economic expansions ever and led to record surpluses

4. Assualt weapons ban- Was a perfectly logical law and now that the Republicans have let it expire, we have dealth with many instances of tragic occasions of gun deaths and near misses such as the recent Missouri AK47 incident

5. Contract with America-write a bunch of lies on a card and people will be dumb enough to believe them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
57. A host of issues but the Repukes got their shit together
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 09:44 PM by ACK
If you don't give the devil his due you will under-estimate him again and the cycle will repeat.

Slow economy due to Reagan and Bush Sr's mismanagement of the economy

Bank scandals blown all out proportion

failed health care plan due to other damn Dems fucking over the US for their own 15 minutes in the spotlight to stab Clinton in the back

higher taxes that ended up balancing out the budget and helping the economy for 8 years of prosperity

gays in the military - feeding into bigotry and expanding the southern strategy

Assault gun ban feeding into stereotype of Dems as anti-gun wusses

The Democrats were a circular firing squad with every other liberal congressman screaming the Clintons were too conservative and every other conservative Democrat from the South stabbing the Clintons in the back all at the same fucking time.

This is the missing part. All of the other shit would not have mattered but the Dems were fractured and the solid south was falling apart into a Repuke stronghold. Every other Southern Dem had blood on their knives from stabbing the party in the back on a host of issues and the rest of the Southern Dems were demonized as part of the same by the other side of the party. Once again this is happening all at the same time as the Republicans were putting together a coherent disciplined media strategy.

All the years of think tanks and southern strategy work suddenly coming to fruition with Gingrich's Contract that he took out on America.

More than anything the timing of all of this played right into a disciplined an united Republican party hungry for power and slick as hell in their media attack.

Whatever meme the Repukes wanted on the front pages ended straight there on the front pages.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
58. One can't overestimate the role NAFTA played.
It pissed a lot of working class people off and drove them to the polls.

Also back then districts weren't as throughly gerrymandered as they are now. That is why there were 50 seats up for grabs instead of the maybe 18 this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Very good point!!! on NAFTA and gerrymandering
Good points indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
60. It was more a sheeple ,media induced anger,
rather than pertaining to actual events. The pig-boy radio went full tilt after 1992. Also a lot of those Repig victories were narrow ones. Makes you wonder what strings were pulled back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
65. The 1994 Feinstein ban was a big part of it...
which continued to be an issue until it finally went away in 2004.

Alienated Rural Democrat
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 Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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