Home | About | Donate

Where is the Democrats’ Contract with America 2018?


#22

The Democrats can put anything in a contract with America and it won’t matter if it does not contain a commitment to running small contribution campaigns.

He who pays the piper calls the tune and if a candidate takes Big Money they will represent Big Money no matter what they promise with or without a contract.

And why are we just waiting for the Democrats to offer us a contract? Why not a Contract FOR America that citizens themselves offer to the politicians where we set the terms?

Why not demand that the politicians demonstrate with action instead of promises that they will represent ordinary citizens by financing their campaigns only with small contributions from individuals?


#23

Remember the contract well along with all the shenanigans and corruption of Newt and Delay and names I don’t remember any longer and wasn’t Newt and Delay charged with a crime?

It was the decade that I became a partisan and vowed never to vote across parties lines like I had for the 20 years previous. Where did that get me with dems?


#24

I wouldn’t expect Democrats to take the advice from someone who isn’t part of the insider power club – the Democratic apparatchik – the DINO echo chamber – certainly not from the people or those who speak for them.


#25

True. But so have the Dems. They have the same donors for all practical purposes.


#26

As I read him, he’s saying that they don’t.


#27

I don’t either, but people do learn sometimes.


#28

The problem is that the Democrats are another Wall Street toady party. They just want to seem like they’re for the American People, but they’re attempting to seem like they’re appealing to a different group than the “Republicans.” I say the real answer would be for the DSA to come into its own and just run candidates as Independents, as Bernie has done, or openly as DSA.


#29

If Democrats want to become a clear majority party, they need to capture independent voters, third party voters and most of all non voters. Your attitude is a losing strategy and hopefully at least some in the party understand this better than you. Nader’s views represent a significant number of voters worth appealing to. Acting like a child and ignoring someone you have a grudge with is not the way to win.


#30

Let’s be a bit more optimistic. The democrats that are running under the banner of social democrat, progressive, upstart liberals need the votes to attempt to alter our course. Things like 1984 syndrome, wealth distribution and such. Without at least a check and balance being voted in with the democrats taking the House, it will be like paddling your canoe upstream using your hands instead of a paddle. We will continue to lose ground, not gain any.
Sadly there is no contract yet, but there could be. Democrats are such a “single issue” party that a full plate agenda has been shadow. Not having any power at all is difficult to overcome with the structure the way it is.
Maybe that’s where a contract with America policy could begin. G


#31

It is either “All or nothing” political rule in our system, or rule with compromise. Obama held out the olive branch of compromise and was rejected. That’s where it stands unless someone is able to break the habits of congress. G


#32

I think Democrats and Republicans added a critical word years ago that they fail to mention in the phrase: by, for and of the people to read: “By the RICH people, For the RICH People and Of the RICH people” and when a politician says “The American people want or don’t something”, what they really mean to say is “The RICH people want or don’t want something” Just add that word RICH to many politicians speeches and you can get their true bought and payed for meaning.
Democracy has gone to hell, it’s plutocracy all the way now.


#33

From a book review of a biography of Hubert Humphrey I read recently: Hubert gathered several of his best buddies to meet with LBJ and argue to stay out of Vietnam. LBJ decided otherwise, to lead to much turmoil afterwards in this country. (Some might argue, necessary turmoil.)

In arguing might-have-beens, have we learned from the Carter Iran experience to look a little earlier? The Vienna Convention on treating diplomats isn’t much respected anymore, at least towards American diplomats. Supposedly ‘students’ seized our embassy because we admitted the Shah of Iran into the USA to get medical treatment. They wanted an exchange, releasing their captives in return for us seizing the Shah and returning him to Iran to face justice. But given Iranian anger towards ‘The Great Satan’, the smarter thing would have been to have withdrawn our embassy weeks or months before this occurred. Much like we have withdrawn embassies from Libya and Somalia.

The statement doesn’t make sense. Do you mean raising taxes on the wealthy? SS is already a bit progressive in the benefits it pays, with the poor getting more for their FICA taxes than the wealthy do. No surprise to hear that people on this forum want to make it much more “progressive”.


Look at this article. Candidates in different states are testing out the electoral power of the left and the center.

It seems like both wings of the Democrat party are trying to cobble together a coalition of limousine liberals (think Marin county or Silicon Valley CA) and angry people-of-color. As the article describes, there is already quite a gulf between those two groups. For example, the things California’s elite-driven Coastal Commission does on land-use helps cause the California housing crisis, driving up the costs that make low-income Californians the largest impoverished group in America. How much wage is needed to live in San Francisco? $25/hour? Or more? All that liberalism and progressivism is sure failing the people who need it in that part of California.
– ¿So how long can that coalition hold together before it breaks up and the Democrats have to get ‘re-aligned’ again?


Not how I remember 2009. The Republicans went up to the White House after the 2008 elections to discuss how they and Obama might work together. Obama up front told them, in effect “My way, vote for my proposals, or the highway.” He definitely told those Republicans “Elections have consequences. I won.”

After observing the past few decades, I’ve become convinced that it would be better to revisit those words in the Constitution’s Preamble “To form a more perfect union”. That we would be better as a nation, or as nations, if we loosened those ties and let California and New York and New England and Hawaii and Puerto Rico do as they wish. Trying to do things from Washington DC leads to too much arguing and filibustering, and has serious “pen and telephone” authoritarian anti-democratic streaks to it. The best way to get something done is grass-roots local, and to insist on, work for, your right to do it locally.
(-- As several separated nations, an idea similar to what was proposed for Germany after WWII, we would cease to be an empire and find it harder to do imperialist sorts of things.)


#34

You hit the nail on the head. I am a political scientist who studies elections. The Democrats lost their voice and their principles when they went The Third Way.


#35

I hear Bernie and Ralph give sound advice to the DNC as if they just don’t get it!

The DNC don’t get it because they don’t want to get it! They are paid to not get it!

Their attitude is not a flaw; it is a feature!

The Repubs crank the country to the right and when the Dems get some power, they lock the rightward shift into place until the next time the Repubs get into power! We have not had even a slight return to the left!

We have to take matters into our own hands and get true progressives into positions of power if we are to keep ourselves, our families, our species from going over the cliff!