PDA

View Full Version : "New Contract with America"



Big Train
11-13-2009, 06:07 PM
Cantor Says GOP to Roll Out Health Care Alternative - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cantor-gop-roll-health-care-alternative/story?id=8938523)

Bringing new ideas is what they need to do, but putting it in an old wrapper might undo it just the same for them.

Republicans Debating 2010 Agenda
No. 2 House Republican Says 'Something Like' Contract with America Will Come Next Year
By RICK KLEIN
Oct. 28, 2009


Stung by the "party of no" label, House Republicans are beginning to prepare a detailed GOP agenda for next year's congressional elections, focusing broadly on efforts to grow the economy, create jobs, and curb the reach of the federal government.

A formal unveiling will most likely wait until next summer or fall, when voters are more engaged in congressional races. Top Republicans caution that major decisions -- including how closely to model efforts on the famous "Contract with America" that Republicans rode to power in 1994 -- are still to come.

But the direction of the effort is beginning to become clearer. GOP leaders are promising to offer a formal alternative to the Democrats' health care bill, rather than let their opposition to a broader government role in health care stand by itself.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said House Republicans will eventually roll out "something like the contract," as they seek ways to present their case to an electorate that's shown signs of concern about full Democratic control of Washington.

"We are really thinking about what it is we would do if we were in control," Cantor, R-Va., told ABC News. "There will be an opportunity for us to proffer our alternatives. You're going to see us do that."

Republicans are already discussing ways to package those alternatives -- with the lessons of 1994's "Contract With America" in mind. That document was rolled out just six weeks before the election, encapsulating a vision endorsed by Newt Gingrich and his allies en route to a sweeping Election Day victory.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the chairman of the Conservative Republican Study Committee, said whether the GOP plans will be called a "contract" is among the major items of debate right now.

"That's the $64,000 question," Price said. "Obviously all of us want the most effective means of communication for that contrast [with Democrats]. Whether that takes the form of a list of specific bills, a list of principles, a list of items we'd accomplish -- all of those things are being discussed right now. I'm not wedded to any of them."

Cantor said the major planks Republicans are coalescing around -- the economy, jobs, and "Washington overreach" -- are areas that are "in [Republicans'] wheelhouse," and that particularly appeal to independent voters.

Asked about the debate inside the Republican Party over the special election in upstate New York next week -- where a series of prominent Republicans have endorsed the Conservative Party candidate because they don't consider the GOP nominee sufficiently conservative -- Cantor said Republicans need to learn Democrats' lesson from 2006 and pick candidates who can win in districts across the country.

"At the end of the day, we have to win control of this place," he said, echoing the argument Gingrich has made in standing by the Republican candidate in New York's 23rd congressional district. Former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., have joined a former Gingrich lieutenant, Dick Armey, in backing the Conservative Party nominee in that race.

The move to offer concrete proposals, rather than vague principles and outright opposition to President Obama's agenda, is an attempt by Republicans to blunt Democratic efforts to label them as the "party of no."

A series of Democrats took to the House floor as recently as Thursday to ask Republicans the rhetorical question: "Where's your bill?"

Price, a medical doctor, has been pressing his caucus to answer that question in detail. He'll get his wish when debate on health care takes place on the House floor.

"The American people need to know that there are people here in Washington who are fighting for them as hard as they can," Price said.

Cantor said the GOP health care alternative would emphasize items including tort reform, portability of health insurance between jobs, tax breaks for individuals to purchase health coverage, and reforms that would keep consumers from being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.

As Republicans plot a way forward, the issue of how closely to model efforts on the successful GOP 1994 campaign is an item of hot debate.

Former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who came to Congress with the "Contract with America" class in 1995, said it won't be enough to offer another "contract" this time around.

"In 1994, it had been 40 years since the Republicans controlled the House; here, it's four years," Davis said on ABCNews.com's "Top Line" Wednesday. "And there's a hesitancy to just go back as the opposition."

The key for Republicans, he said, will be to find a way to broaden the party's reach without sacrificing the grass-roots energy they'll need to win.

"You're going to be a national party, or you're going to be a private club, and that's the conversation this party has to decide," said Davis, who left Congress this year and now heads the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership.

"They've got to keep the energy from the 'tea-baggers' and the 'birthers' and these groups that probably couldn't govern a one-car funeral, but they're the energy for the party at this point. You need those people and you've got to adopt a couple things. And frankly, they're not wrong on every issue. But at the same time you need to appeal to independents and moderates," Davis said.

FORD
11-13-2009, 06:26 PM
Just the fact that Repukes are referencing the original Contract ON America from 1994, is proof enough that it's a failed strategy.

One of the central "promises" of that contract is that they wouldn't serve more than 12 years (6 terms in the House or 2 terms in the Senate). Obviously, they weren't too concerned with that, after they got into office, and that would have been the easiest part of their promise to keep, as it wouldn't require any votes from the opposing party or Presidential signatures.

The real battle is no longer Democrats vs Republicans anyway. It's people vs corporatism, and the real battle is not in November, but in the primaries.

Got a corporatist in office? Vote them the fuck out in the primary.

Big Train
11-13-2009, 06:31 PM
The real battle is no longer Democrats vs Republicans anyway. It's people vs corporatism, and the real battle is not in November, but in the primaries.

Got a corporatist in office? Vote them the fuck out in the primary.

Can you define this a bit more for me. I'm just curious how you frame this argument.

FORD
11-13-2009, 07:11 PM
If your "representative" isn't representing you, why the Hell would you vote for them again?

The PEOPLE never wanted war in Afghanistan or especially Iraq.

The PEOPLE never wanted a bailout for Goddamn Sucks, or AIG.

The PEOPLE want the US to have a fucking health care system like any other civilized nation on this planet.

And who benefits from all those things the PEOPLE are against? Corporations.

And it seems most of the people in Washington DC aren't listening to anyone outside the beltway. :(

Big Train
11-13-2009, 07:24 PM
But aren't PEOPLE benefitting from corporations? Can you be both?

Can you be a PERSON not being represented by your congressman and also be a CORPORTIST because the company that you work for sells Dixie Cups to Halliburton?

I like it better when Corporatists were called Profiteers...seemed a better fit.

FORD
11-13-2009, 07:59 PM
Used to be a legal requirement that before the state granted a corporation the right to exist, they had to demonstrate that they acted in the public interest. For example, the Nike corporation originally made shoes, and employed Americans in the process, so they would qualify. Not so sure about now, as most of their operations are overseas.

Boeing made machines of death and destruction, but also made passenger aircraft, and employed a lot of people at union wages (before they got greedy and started moving various operations out of Washington state) so they would also qualify.

If Goldmine Sucks had to justify their existence by explaining exactly HOW they serve the public interest, they wouldn't have much they could say in their own defense. So should they be allowed to exist at all, much less have such a ridiculous amount of influence in the goverment, or the overall economy (oil speculation, etc.)

Big Train
11-13-2009, 08:12 PM
Used to be a legal requirement that before the state granted a corporation the right to exist, they had to demonstrate that they acted in the public interest. For example, the Nike corporation originally made shoes, and employed Americans in the process, so they would qualify. Not so sure about now, as most of their operations are overseas.

Boeing made machines of death and destruction, but also made passenger aircraft, and employed a lot of people at union wages (before they got greedy and started moving various operations out of Washington state) so they would also qualify.

If Goldmine Sucks had to justify their existence by explaining exactly HOW they serve the public interest, they wouldn't have much they could say in their own defense. So should they be allowed to exist at all, much less have such a ridiculous amount of influence in the goverment, or the overall economy (oil speculation, etc.)

It's an outdated law. How does a consulting firm show it is in the public's interest? Anyone who has a job for an American is in the public's interest.

The unions in Washington State got greedy, which is why Boeing is setting up shop in South Carolina.

If you have money and are a member of the public, you are being served by financial firms.

Government influence and right to exist are two completely separate issues.

hambon4lif
11-14-2009, 03:23 PM
The real battle is no longer Democrats vs Republicans anyway. It's people vs corporatism Absolutely!

..Jerome Corsi describes it in his book "America For Sale" as the '21st century Patriots vs. the Globalists' which to me is an accurate description also..