Keeping the Dems’ ‘Contract’ on ice

November 8, 2005

Dem Party leaders have made strides in crafting a positive policy agenda for 2006, but according to subscription-only Roll Call, we won’t see it anytime soon.

National Democratic Party leaders have decided to punt on rolling out their 2006 agenda until next year, and will in part fill the time slot with a unity rally this Thursday to highlight fractures in the Republican camp and show why their party should be back in charge. […]

The Democratic leadership had been planning to use the one-year mark prior to the midterm elections as the time to unveil the party’s “positive agenda” for 2006. But sources said Democratic leaders decided to keep the policy blueprint under wraps for now, sensing that the current political climate is paying dividends for them and that voters are not yet focused on the midterm ballots.

“This fall is not the time for Democrats to roll out a positive agenda,” said a House Democratic aide. “You should never get in your opponent’s way when they are doing a good job of destroying themselves. There is plenty of time next year to talk to voters about what Democrats are fighting for.”

I wholeheartedly agree. A few weeks ago, some party officials were anxious to move the release up to right about now, hoping to capitalize on the Republicans’ failures. Apparently, cooler heads prevailed and the Dems’ “Contract with America”-like agenda will be unveiled next year.

The truth is, Republicans wanted Dems to publish an agenda now and there’s no reason for Dems to fall for it. The GOP’s been looking for a life preserver, something new to change the policy discussion away from their own disasters. By presenting a detailed plan, Dems would only be giving the Republicans a target and a unifying rallying cry.

There’s no rush. In 1994, Newt & Co. published their “Contract” a few weeks before the election. As I recall, the timing didn’t hurt them any.

“You should never get in your opponent’s way when they are doing a good job of destroying themselves. There is plenty of time next year to talk to voters about what Democrats are fighting for.”

I also have to agree with this statement. A year is a lot of time to give your opponents, it gives the GOP and the media something to discuss other than their utter failure to govern, and it’s very early for the voter to be thinking about this stuff. Voters don’t like long campaigns. Start campaigning in 4-6 months, especially since it’s only a midterm election.

Something else has been on my mind about this “contract”. It would be remiss of the GOP to mention this, but their 1994 “Contract” didn’t succeed so well, did it? How many of the initiatives on that thing actually got enacted once the GOP got itself into power? The Dems would do well to spell out how theirs would do differently.

And something else on my mind: why call it a “contract” or whatever? What happened to party platforms?

  • I haven’t thought the “contract” all that much, but I think holding back on what it means could be a bad idea, for several reasons.

    1) The Republicans will paint us badly whether we give them a “contract” or not.

    2) Dems aren’t Republicans. This herd of cats will not form a line upon orders from high command, they need a reason to get behind the party.

    3) I doubt if “we’re not Republicans” is sufficient reason for the swing voter to vote heavily Dem. But as bad as the Republicnas are making things, maybe I’m wrong about that.

    All that said, the Dems need to moderate on the issues that will only mobilize the Right wing of the Republicans. Sorry if this seems an affront to those affected, but Democrats will NOT be able to protect anyone’s rights if we don’t recapture a branch or two (or three) of the government.

    Democrats need to be ready to LEAD this country, it’s been plundered long enough, and when the reins are handed over, Dems need to be ready to hit the ground running, IMO starting with war crimes trials against the bastards that got us into the Iraq war.

  • I don’t agree, but of course there’s no
    way to prove it. The Democrats should
    stand for something, not just use it
    as an election ploy. Right now, the
    American people don’t know who
    the hell the Democrats are, and
    they haven’t known for a long time.
    And frankly, I don’t know who they
    are. And when I hear this kind of
    talk, I get the firm impression that
    they aren’t anybody. It’s all strategery,
    a game. No real substance. So do
    they manipulate their base with their
    contract prior to 2006, then pull the
    rug out from beneath them the way the
    Republicans do with their fundies’
    and bigots’ base?

    And in the end, is it just the special
    interests running the country, the
    way Nader has always said,
    no matter which party is in
    power?

  • Dems definitely need the weight of the Republicans bad behavior to hit them unimpeded. Karma is such a bitch. But I do think the Dems need to get a bit more aggressive in defending themselves and defining themselves because if they don’t they get rolled and voters think they are wimps. The balance between presenting youself as a viable alternative, definding against the inevitable attacks, and attacking versus letting the GOP hang itself is a tricky thing. Reid and Pelosi are doing better than I though they would be but there is still a long way to go.

  • I think we’re all in violent agreement.

    The Democrats need to stand for something. We need to say it in grand, emotional, sweeping, advertising-like Mom and Apple Pie terms. NOW. And over and over and over again.

    BUT we absolutely should NOT roll out any detailed, wonky policy agenda. No specifics now. That’d just be stupid. Save that till the very end, when “where’s the beef” time occurs and the general electorate is actually paying attention to us. In boxing terms: don’t open up a target, keep dancing.

    Right now, we do *NOT* want people paying attention to us. We want them paying attention to the disastrous clusterfuck that is the Repug party. To extend the boxing analogy: they are disoriented and stumbling all over their own feet. Let’s keep everyone focussed on their failures.

    You absolutely, positively can win elections by simply going negative on your opponent, while offering nothing but vague feel-good generalities and patriotic posturing as an alternative. Two words: Ronald Reagan (Bill Clinton did pretty well at it too). Shit, Repugs have beat the hell put of us for 30 years with exactly that strategy!!! Why shouldn’t we get smart now and use it ourselves?

    So I say, let’s keep the focus on Repug failures, until they are totally destroyed.

    Democrats stand for a slogan we repeat again and again “Together, We Can Do Better”. Let people project their *own* specifics as to what it means: “Together, We Can Do Better”. We will, however, mercilessly and brutally and relentlessly pick apart every specific aspect of the Repugs policies, actions, failures, and character flaws. Offering none of our own for them to pick apart– until they are sufficiently destroyed to be unable to mount a successful attack on our specifics.

    This is how you win elections, people. No more Mr. Nice Democrat. Time to experience spontaneous testicular growth. Wait till the Repugs are totally destroyed, then offer our shining vision for a magnificent new America, when the time is right– when the Repugs are too defeated to even mount a feeble criticism of it.

  • Hey CB…

    Strongly agree with you – Democrat talking points will act as a lightning rod at this point…and I thought the “We Can Do Better” slogan was totally lame…since when is just “better” good enough???…

    Think they REALLY need further input vis-a-vis the slogan…talk to Madison Avenue at least, rummage through Peggy Noonan’s trash for any suppressed progressive prosody…do SOMETHING…lol.

  • Like others have said, it’s important to note that the losses the GOP have suffered in the polls haven’t translated to gains for the Democrats, and that they are almost as unpopular as a party as the GOP is. This “contract” should be part of a strategy to capitalize on the way the GOP has been isolating itself and diverging from the interests of most Americans. Tax cuts may be popular, but torturing our prisoners isn’t, lying to Americans to convince them to support going to war isn’t popular, banning abortion isn’t popular, cutting programs for the poor isn’t popular, tearing down the barriers between church and state isn’t popular, and generally the whole kit and kaboodle of GOP initiatives since gaining power have been terribly unpopular, particularly since the election last year.

  • But, hey! It’s awful fun to watch the Republican party implode. I mean, it’s fun, but it’s also awful to see the true depths of their greed and cupidity, and to hear their endless self-serving lies. It is truly astounding in its awfulness.

    (I thought Richard Nixon was bad, but compared to the current pack of Republicans, one can see that whatever Nixon may have been guilty of, at least he was able to govern.)

  • I don’t think Gingrich’s “Contract” had much to do with the election. Few voters even knew about it. Instead, it was used after the election as a claim for a mandate to do whatever the Republicans wanted to do.

    • Comments are closed.