The "contract with america" won the elections for

[OwnedByFerrets]

repugs in "94, if I am not mistaken. Why cant the Democratic Leadership do their own "Promise to America". A promise to american to clean up the corruption and stop the corporate take-over. Are we too proud to borrow a proven method of success?
It would have to be done in exactly the same way as the one in '94. On the steps of congress and everything. If you go back and read that thing, they are promising to do everything that WE WANT TO DO NOW.
I know that it could be twisted that we have no new ideas, but if presented properly(with flair), couldnt this be something to capture the short attention span of the average American Idol american?
Thoughts?

[I Have A Dream]

1. Interesting thought, OBF. It *is* what we want to do, so we'd actually...

be telling the truth.

[ComerPerro]

2. The reason the Contract on America worked is that every word was a lie

[napi21]

3. Yes, it did, but it was helped A LOT by voters being very angry at the

Dems in power. There were a lot of scandals, and the Dems hadgotten extremely arrogant! (Sound familiar?) I actually think the Pubs would have won without the Contract with America. Fortunately for us, the public is just as ticked off at the Pubs NOW.

[Vincardog]

4. OK here it is.

#1 Paper ballots hand counts
#2 Public financing of all Federal Elections
#2.a The end of corporate influence and "Person hood".
#3 Universal Health CARE
#4 Universal free quality education
#5 Full employment
#6 Raise "minimum wage" to a "Living WAGE"
#7 The end of government intrusion into personal medical decisions
YES this includes DRUGS Pregnancy and end of life decisions
#8 Abrogate "Free Trade" in favor of "FAIR TRADE" treaties.
#9 repudiate the unconstitutional SEARCH, Wiretapping and prison aspects
of the bushalini laws.

[KharmaTrain]

5. The Name Didn't Do It...That Was PR

It was more the message of "had enough...". In Fall '94 the media was saturated with stories of Democratic party failures from Whitewater to Hillarycare to the investigations into Rostenkowski and others that created the low approval ratings for the House. Also, the DNC didn't really see the mood change all this negative PR did (just like Boooosh is trying to ignore it now) and they did so at their peril...being outspent and out hustled in lots of races.

The GOOP's '94 victory was as much a result of them being better organized and motivated than we were. Issues like a balanced budget or term limits got voter attention and the GOTV operation got the vote out. Also, remember in '92, the GOOP vote had been split by Perot and the party reunited under their concerted desire to retake one of the houses. The Democrats got lazy and it took until Howard Dean came along to start matching the GOOP's tactic with ones on our side. You're starting to see the results.

[Ken Burch]

6. Part of the reason is that our leadership still doesn't accept

That we have the right to fight elections as the equals of the GOP. They believe that the Republicans are entitled to fight for their principles, but we aren't. They don't get it that we're winning IN SPITE of this approach, not because of it.

If we win, it will be because voters rejected ALL that Bush stands for and we will need to present ourselves on that assumption. A majority will end up being useless if our leaders persist in defensive, rather than offensive politics. The 1992-1994 period proves my point on this.

[valerief]

7. I think traditionalists would respond to "Throw the bums out." nt

[unblock]

8. fwiw, the contract on america did NOT win any elections

the contract on america was a brilliant move on gingrinch's part, but it was NOT about winning the house, or any particular congressional election. the house was sewn up for the disgraced republicans by then (a mere 6 weeks before the election) and the vast majority of people never even heard of the contract on america by the time they voted.

it was actually only well publicized among within washington and among the politically aware, most of whom had long since made up their minds how to vote.

what it WAS about was creating an agenda for their "mandate". coming into power just because the public is fed up with the other party doesn't create much momentum for passing laws. so what the contract on america did was give gingrinch the rhetorical pretense that people voted for THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. THAT created the political momentum for them to pass the laws they wanted.

in short, it was not about winning the election, but about making his speakership successful.


and of course, it worked, so perhaps having a democratic version might work as well. similar circumstances.