Centerfield

Frankly, it sounds like a re-branded retread of last year's Dem platform and wish list.

Gee! I guess I need to research what the '94 Republican Contract with America sounded like. This sounds fairly routine Democratic stuff and frankly a bit partisan. If I were an independant I'd balk at this. What's the target audience?

I would hasten to add that the points presented in the ModerateVoters.org post are NOT (as near as I can tell) stated policy positions of ModerateVoters.org, although the poster says "we agree with almost everything written." But the positions aren't that moderate at all. Nor is the original author of the "Contract," Robert Borosage. He's a leader in the Dean/Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party, an open left-liberal, so it isn't surprising that his version of the CWA matches last year's left-liberal rhetoric.

ModerateVoters.org doesn't seem to have any actual names associated with it. Their "About Us" section is remarkably devoid of actual information or any real (named) people. All of the blog entries are likewise signed "ModerateVoters.org".

The web site is registered out of the Los Angeles area. Maybe that's what passes for moderate in LA. Of course, almost everyone thinks they're a moderate. ;-)

I agree with the above. Furthermore could the platform be a bit more specific about how a Democratic president would lead "an aggressive international alliance to track down stateless terrorists, to get loose nukes under control and to fight nuclear proliferation.” How would this alliance be formed? How would the cooperation of states that profit from doing business with regimes that support terrorism be secured? How far would Democrats go to stop nuclear proliferation? What would they do about Iran or North Korea's nuclear weapon programs for example? If Venezuela is trying to obtain nuclear weapons, how will they stop Chavez from doing so? It seems to me that security issues cause many Americans who might otherwise vote for a Democratic president to vote Republican. The Dems need to present a clear vision here.

The target audience is those in the Great Middle who analyze fuzzy soaring rhetoric using parts below the neckline, rather than above it. A not inconsiderable demographic, I'm sure.

I think world peace would be nice.

Whoever can provide text of the '94 GOP contract, I'd love to do a comparison.

Off the top of my noggin, this seems like a very crappy effort, in that democrats are defining themsleves in opposition to the Bush admin. Pie-in-the-sky positions are used as justification to get rid of policies the democrats have been battling all along. There's really nothing new here. (and BTW, I acknowledge that the 94 GOP C w/ A likely had similar flaws.

But let's face it, if we want a GOOD contract, instead of fluffy rhetoric, we need to write it ourself. And every thing we ask for has to be followed by reasonable suggestions for how to achieve it, instead of turning each issue into a good guys-bad guys fight.

For example, on social security, instead of highlighting the divide over exactly how to reform, we need to describe a reasonable end state and open the discussion about how and how much of it we can achieve. This effort never gets out of the gate as long as the debate is framed as a "choice" between privatization and "strengthening."

What we need is a financially sustainable sytem to support older Americans. We need to provide a minimum subsistence level for lower income earners in retirement along with enough flexibilty that the financing of the system is not a really crappy deal for middle and high-income earners. A good start would be a bipartisan commission composed of sensible moderates. Each party could nominate 10 candidates for the 9 or 11 member commision, and these candidates would state priorities and then get elected by national referendum. Members would be charged with talking with both experts and everyday Americans and coming up with a reform plan report within two years. Each of the main components of the reform would also be put to a national referendum that the commision would use as its guide to crafting a final reform plan.

Whoever can provide text of the '94 GOP contract, I'd love to do a comparison.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

Contract With America

It's considerably more specific than the Borosage leftie version. Of course, that's not tough to accomplish.

That is a losing, negative agenda that has been and will continue to be rightly labeled class warfare. Bullets 4, 5, 7, and 9 are why I am not a Democrat. I don't understand why a white union worker should make a "prevailing wage," while a poor minority business owner who can't afford to pay the guy that's digging a ditch $30/hour, goes out of business. Prevailing is another word for inflated. Any Democrat who runs on a timeline to get out of of Iraq will lose a national election, and lose big.

The fact that they are targeting the middle with that message is why they are the minority party, and will continue to be.

Tully;
Thanks for the link. I guess the Republican's didn't do so hot on that balanced budget thing.

The most striking contrast between this and the Republicans' old "Contract" is the lack of specificity here — regardless of the merits of the R's plans, at least they had the virtue of being spelled out. "We will make these procedural changes in congress, and pass laws x, y, and z." Here, it's all nebulous bumper-sticker stuff, interlaced with reflexive Bush/Republican/conservative-kicking.

The R's "Contract" didn't even mention the Democrats once.

I also like the comment on the original post that says this "Contract" proves the Democrats are "rightward... spineless... corporate warmonger[s]".

They did OK on the balanced budget thing until they hit a double wall, Chris. The first wall was the collapse of the tech bubble. The second was realization that they were incumbents, and not term-limited. (My personal opinion is that even the finest reform politician acquires a degree of cynical me-first hackdom after their first re-election.)