What caused the 1994 Congressional Democratic Bloodbath/Massacre?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I remember the euphoria I felt when Bill Clinton/Al Gore got elected in 1992 and for 2 years thereafter we had a Democratic federal government but then just a short 2 years later everything just collapsed/caved-in for us and Gingrich et. al seized both houses of Congress and the GOP remained in power for 12 years, 6 of which they controlled the entire federal government. The "Gingrich Revolution", of course, also forced Clinton to have to move further to the center/right in order to get anything accomplished during his last one and half terms in office- which led to some rather disappointing/harmful legislation.

It is popularly believed that Hillary's health-care reform efforts, or more specifically, the MASSIVE opposition thereto, played a big part in the Democratic party's downfall, as well as, like in 2006 with the GOP, the corruption of several congressmen (many of whom - unfortunately- were Democrats). Does anybody else know any other reasons for the 1994 debacle and, more importantly, what do Obama and the Democratic Party need to do to avoid another such debacle? This is perhaps one of my biggest worries right now as Obama takes office even though I have great hope and confidence in Obama to help put this country back on track and I'm not sure that the Republicans really have the clout and/or reputation to stage a similar "comeback" in 2010 but I don't feel entirely confident in our leadership in Congress either to handle our newly (re-)gained power and status. Thoughts? Opinions?

[aquart]

1. Thank you for your concern.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. Is this another way of saying that I'm some sort of party pooper

or, worse, FREEPER just because I have what I imagine some other people consider a wholly LEGITIMATE concern. I thought we'd had enough of this during the GE. Geez!!! :eyes:

[Romulox]

50. It's a basic DU bully tactic--an attempt to silence discussion of the matter. nt

[JackRiddler]

63. As romulox says - don't let yourself be bullied.

[Edweird]

2. AWB

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. yup. n/t

[JackRiddler]

65. NAFTA > > > AWB

[elleng]

3. Gingrich,

and angry reps.

[islandmkl]

4. you might want to remember a couple of things:

1) Bill Clinton was in no way a 'mandate'-elected President...remember Ross Perot? The level of 'popular' support behind Clinton was tenuous at best.

2) The Dems in Congress were headed backwards to begin with...and Newt and gang exploited the 'evolved weaknesses' of the Dems...quite effectively, as it turned out...and proceeded to keep the Dems on the run until Howard Dean grabbed the party and straightened it out...

[leftstreet]

24. Ding!

People seem to have forgotten Perot. Which is interesting given how successful he was at a third party run, in a system that fights against it.

[SharonAnn]

54. Answer: Increase in Income Tax rates at higher level energized Newt and Rush.

They bloviated all over the place about the increase in Income Taxes. I was making good money then and it affected me, but I didn't worry about it. I still had more money in my pocket than I'd ever had before (or since).

[SoCalDem]

55. BC was considered to have "stolen" GHWB's 2nd term

and right wing radio went into OVERDRIVE.. This was Rush's zenith..and Free Republic sprang up.

In fact, I think thet GW's presidency was a way to "avnge" his Poppy's loss..:( It might have been worth it to have had a 2nd Bush 1 term..:(

[FatDave]

62. That's how I remember it.

Republicans were furious that Poppy didn't get a second term, and they held a grudge like no other. They hounded Clinton from day one and eventually were able to ambush him about a blow job while under oath. The ambush was under oath, not the blow job. But that shit all happened because they were sore losers.

And as already mentioned, this was at Limbaugh's peak. He was even on television. The right-wing noise machine was in full effect and going completely unanswered by the left.

But now we have the internet and popular voices in the media. And a significant percentage of conservatives will die of old age during Obama's time as president while a new generation of politically involved young people become voters.

1994 was their peak. Their reign is over.

[jpljr77]

5. People thought that the names Newt and Rush were awesome?

I have no idea otherwise.

[FLAprogressive]

6. The DLC's push for an AWB

And they're pushing for one again.

I almost think the DLC is a sadistic organization that WANTS Democrats to be out of power. So the DLC wing can pass their corporate crap and not get blamed for it.

[dysfunctional press]

13. the dlc is made up of of dino repug corporatists...they definitely want democratic ideals to fail...

to be replaced with corporate-controlled fascist rule.

[Jane Austin]

7. Lies. And

damned lies.

[ieoeja]

8. #1. Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)

Well over 90% of my family switched parties following passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. A lot of DUers refuse to see this, citing national polls showing about 60% of Americans supporting that law. The problem is that those supporters tend to be congregated in a minority of House districts.

If AWB pisses off 51% of the people in 60% of the districts, Republicans get a majority in the House regardless of how the overall majority of people nationwide feel.


#2. Clinton embraced Reaganism and ran a presidential campaign against the Congress.

I recall pundits at the time marvelling over this given the fact that his own party controlled Congress. It worked to get him elected. But was a huge boon to Republican efforts to take control of Congress. You had Republicans in districts across the country saying, "even the Bill Clinton says Represenative {insert-name-here} is too Liberal!"

[Statistical]

40. What people also fail to understand is that...

Gun owners vote at a higher % than the population in general.
Gun owners also are more likely (not all but more likely) to be a single issue voter.
Gun owners are more likely to contribute to a political organization (like NRA) than general population.

You put the three together and a major movement in this sub population can change a close election.

People will say "well what about Obama". The election wasn't close. Not by modern standards.
Gun owners did vote against Obama in substantial numbers however his margin of victory was a magnitude larger.

The 1994 election was shaping up to be a close election and gun owners pushed the GOP over the top.
The fact that the stupid AWB happened to come out in a ELECTION YEAR :wtf: only made it worse.

[derby378]

52. As for that 60% supporting another semi-auto ban...

...that number used to be as high as 80-85% in 1994, depending on which poll you referenced.

Support for a new gun ban has been dropping slowly but surely over the past 14 years, even with the 1994 ban's expiration in 2004.

I refuse to use the term "assault weapon" any more than I have to. There is no concise, technical definition of the term - it's merely a buzzword meant to drum up support for new gun legislation that will hobble Democrats on Capitol Hill.

[KharmaTrain]

9. The Rise Of Hate Radio

From the moment he was elected, not a day passed where the Clintons weren't trashed by Rushbo or the other hate radio clowns. They were new and unknown at the time and caught a lot of attention. Be it DADT, "Hillarycare", Whitewater or any other of the "scandals" or "debacles", these goons were ready to pounce. The advantage was that Democrats had controlled Congress for so long that it was easy to find a Rostenkowski to pounce on and claim the "new repugnicans" like Gingrich were different.

[L. Coyote]

10. Election fraud?

Given what we in retrospect, and the methods developed for statistical analysis, maybe we should check out why!

[Cleita]

11. I think both election fraud and the rise of hate radio caused this too.

It would be nice if some investigative reporters or historians could check it out.

[BeFree]

30. The same time...

...that the first computer generated results of the vote were established in this country.
To dismiss the possibility would be akin to burying your head in the sand.

[moondust]

12. Hillarycare/"Socialism"

Big pharma, big insurance, and predatory capitalists got organized.

[dysfunctional press]

14. three things, basically: 1. richard 2. mellon 3. scaife

and his money, of course.

[madrchsod]

15. hillary care that no one understood or wanted at that time

the healthcare industry poured millions into the effort to stop it and she was rewarded when it failed. clinton was a president that did not have the majority of the population behind him.

[Odin2005]

16. Inner-city Dems pushing gun control.

I was 8yo then and remember clearly the rantings of people saying Clinton was coming to take away everyone's guns. :eyes:

The memory of that is why I won't touch the gun issue with a ten-foot pole.

[Radical Activist]

19. That's only half the equation.

It explains why some people voted against Democrats but it doesn't explain why so many Democrats stayed home. It was a very low turnout election.

[benEzra]

33. You think Dems don't own guns?

HALF of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies (and FWIW, 80% are nonhunters).


Here's why a lot of Dems stayed home:

Alienated Rural Democrat

[Radical Activist]

48. Yes,

I think that goes along with my point made elsewhere in the thread about so few were motivated to vote. The party abandoned rural Democrats in many other ways as well when they went chasing after soccer moms.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Many Democrats are also gun owners

[Yavin4]

17. Clinton Listened To Rubin and Greenspan and Attacked the Deficit Instead of a Stimulus

Greenspan and Rubin convinced Clinton to use his political capital to attack the deficit instead of doing a stimulus. Greenspan even promised him that he would keep interest rates low if he did so. The result was that Clinton's economic plan passed by one vote, Gore's tiebreaker.

Even though Clinton raised taxes primarily on the wealthy, the GOP and their gigantic propaganda machine convinced the voters that Clinton raised taxes on everyone. The Dems in 1994 paid the ultimate price at the ballot box.

Not only did Greenspan lied to Clinton about keeping interest rates low, he spit in the face of the new era of fiscal discipline by endorsing Bush's tax cuts in 2001, which everyone in the world knew would re-ignite deficit spending once again.

Moreover, Greenspan did indeed lower interest rates under Bush and push them not only lower, but historically lower at 1%. Clinton's lowest Greenspan interest rate was 3%, and that was for only three months or so. Bush had 1%-2% interest rates from the end of 2001 through 2004. These low rates in turn created the housing asset bubble, and you know the rest of that story.

[Radical Activist]

18. No one showed up to vote.

There are a lot of reasons for that, and others have mentioned some. But what it all comes down to is that it's still the lowest turn-out election in decades.

Democrats, and particularly union members, stayed home. NAFTA, no health care, abandoning much of the progressive platform Clinton campaigned on all played a role in that. Angry conservatives voted but many Democrats didn't feel the need to show up for a President who didn't deliver for them.

Obama is already showing that he's aware of this danger and is acting to prevent it. I'm sure that's one reason why he's holding the change meetings to keep his supporters engaged after the election. It will also help him pressure Congress to pass his agenda, which was another problem for Clinton. People don't realize how significant these meetings are.

[Selatius]

22. Those meetings with local mayors and governors helped FDR as well back then.

Those conferences with local mayors and governors nationwide helped lay the groundwork for the start of programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Public Works Administration, especially the latter. The meetings conveyed to FDR exactly where to aim government aid to municipalities that needed help the most, and it also gave him a constituency willing to go out and bat for his proposals because the locals in those areas knew FDR was talking to them when he went in front of the radio or in front of cameras.

That aside, I believe your answer encompassed most of what happened to cause Democrats to fall in 1994. The current crop of leaders on Capitol Hill would be wise to listen to what voters want.

[Still Sensible]

20. I believe the organized opposition

to the initial Clinton health care initiative played the fear card big time... and Don't Ask Don't Tell helped the republicans galvanize the culture war message to an electorate more willing to respond to it than today.

When Clinton was first elected the Republican brand was much stronger than today. Newt Gingrich was able to lead what he called "A Contract With America." (It was really a Contract on America, but that's for other threads) The typical small government, anti-government, anti-taxes memes... coupled with a healthy dose of GOP defined "family values."

Unless the democrats really screw up badly in the next year or so, the climate will not lend itself to a similar resurgence of the GOP IMO.

[blm]

21. 2 major reasons: Clinton deep-sixed BCCI matters that should've put BushInc in jail, and

the GOP's fascist buddies bought control of most broadcast media and drove the perception that it was Democrats who were unethical, leaving the biggest crooks and traitors in DC with Clinton leading the protection of Bush and his powerful cronies.

[L. Coyote]

26. BINGO. Not fulfilling the expectation of the People! Take a lesson Barack!

[blm]

28. Yep - there would never have BEEN a takeover of congress in 94 if GOPs were shamed by BushInc's

crimes against our country - and certainly no Bush2. We'd have universal healthcare by now, a healthy and well-regulated financial industry, and aover a decade of environmental ACHIEVEMENTS as a nation and world - no growing global terror networks funded by powerful interests and no 9-11.

[theboss]

39. What expectations did the people have in Clinton?

Only 4 in 10 voted for him in '92.

Clinton's problem was he had little popular support coming in, and managed to shrink that immediately.

[asksam]

23. What Caused the Rethugs to take Congress in '94?

Fixed elections.

[depakid]

29. Clinton & the Dem congress enabled and legitimized one too many right wing policies

and the base grew disillusioned- wouldn't put their boots on the ground, and didn't turn out to vote.

Something similar- though not as extreme could easily happen in 2010.

[anonymous171]

32. Yep. We must keep reminding Obama of that fact.

[depakid]

34. Yep- we really do need to keep the pressure on. Paul Loeb describes what happened in 1994:

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed.

Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns.

This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[Romulox]

51. Like the TARP, you mean? :P nt

[depakid]

56. Reasonable people want to see the financial system stabilized

Only the loony left and far right ideologues want otherwise.

If Obama and Congress pull it off- their electoral prospects are going to be set for very a long time.

[Romulox]

57. Because the only two choices are ARMAGEDDON! or trillions of taxpayer $ to Wall Street. Makes sense

Oh wait. No it doesn't. :crazy:

[Raineyb]

66. Right because giving money to the same theiving bastards that lost it all in the first place

is a good way to make sure the money won't be lost again.

Wait a minute, it's not!

Regards

[benEzra]

31. The single biggest issue was the "assault weapon" fraud, aka the 1994 Feinstein law.

Talking up hunting while demonizing popular nonhunting guns only works if most gun owners are hunters. Guess what, 4 out of 5 gun owners don't hunt. And there are plenty of people who want to repeat the 1994 debacle, even though small-caliber rifles with modern styling are far more popular now than then, and the challenges the nation faces are more serious now than then.


Background on the issue, for non-gunnies:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)


FWIW, only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, regardless of what the handgrip is shaped like or what color it is. Rifles are almost completely irrelevant to the gun violence picture in the United States.

[Statistical]

38. Also it played right in the NRA biggest theme...

The NRA has always "warned" that the Democrats (well not all Democrats, many Dems in VA have an A from NRA) but Dems in general will TAKE YOUR GUNS.

Most gun owners didn't believe it. The "take your guns crowd" was relegated to the tin foil stores.

The the 1994 AWB happened. Most people didn't even own a "so called assault weapon" however the idea that the feds would ban a class of weapons without justification suddenly made the idea real.

It went from the paranoid nuts to mainstream gun owners.
The NRA gain millions of members from that single law and tens of millions in funding.
The 1994 AWB was the "single best thing" that EVER happened to the NRA.

[benEzra]

41. My dad (a registered Dem at that time) said of the Feinstein bill,

"That won't pass. This is America."

Needless to say, it did.

Think of what was thrown away in 1994 over stupid restrictions on rifle handgrips that stick out and other such nonsense. Where would health insurance reform, Iraq, and economic policy be today had the DLC not thrown away Congress and its political capital on a nonsensical law that did nothing but piss off law-abiding voters, many of whom consistently voted (D) until that point?

And there are some geniuses around who would like to repeat the 1994 debacle in 2010.

[Statistical]

46. Well in advertising they say a consumer on average needs to be exposed to an ad 7 times....

in order to be affected. Maybe it is the same with "stupid gun laws"?

First time it didn't work but we will try it again.
Second time same results.
Couple years late, "Hmm I got a great idea lets ban gun again" = same results
..... (4th-6th failed attempts)
Seventh time. "Hmm still not a good idea".
Democratic Party finally moves away from gun bans?

Bad news is 7 attempts is probably longer than my lifetime.
Who knows maybe the 2072 Democratic Platform will have no "gun ban plank"?

A man can dream.

[Stuckinthebush]

35. Excellent question

I think it is important to review the past to avoid mistakes.

Other posters have pointed out that a big part of the problem was that Clinton was not overwhelmingly elected through a majority. Ross Perot took a load of votes away from GHWB, but those voters couldn't stand Clinton. That and the poor way that health care reform was handled led to an environment ripe for the GOP. The Repubs still had longings for Reagan and were under-impressed by GHWB. The Gingrich Republicans were Reagan acolytes, and felt that they could change the country by pushing through Reaganesque reforms. All of this combined to screw the Dems in 1994.

But history was much more kind to Clinton and less so to the Gingrich crowd. I think that Obama has a team that has been through the lumps of that time and understand what missteps to avoid.

One thing is for sure, you can never be too cocky. Just a few short years ago the GOP was crowing about a permanent majority. We all see how that turned out.

I think that Obama is the right man for the time and will usher in a number of years of Democratic rule. The pendulum will swing back (hopefully not too fast and forcefully). Republicans will become the majority again and will work to undo the advances of the Democrats. The challenge is to make many positive far-reaching changes such as the Great Society and the New Deal. Once enacted, it will be incredibly difficult for the GOP to dismantle popular social programs in the future.

Great question - ignore the first poster who assumed you were a concern troll.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. Thanks for your comments and contribution to the discussion.

I was surprised at that first reply. It seems amazing that somebody actually thought that somebody else with a 1000+ post count to their name might be a Freeper and/or "concern troll" trying to cause trouble here. :eyes: Thankfully, you and the rest of the people whom posted seem to agree that it is a wholly legitimate discussion topic.
While I'm extraordinarily happy that Obama is President and we expanded our margins in Congress, I just don't want to see our ability to fix the problems exacerbated (if not caused) by Bushco be stymied and hamstrung by a second GOP counter-ascendancy. Our majority, unfortunately, won't last forever but like you (correctly) argued, we need the changes we make now to be as structurally resistant as possible to future GOP efforts to reverse them.
Cheers! :toast:

[PVnRT]

36. The last of the boll weevils and the right-wing's control of the media

[theboss]

37. Four things really

1. Clinton came in with 42 percent of the vote. He wasn't exactly governing with a mandate.
2. The First 100 days were a clusterfuck, which killed any chance of building momentum and made the Administration look incompetent.
3. The 1993 Budget Plan had to be passed with Gore's signature and was seen as an unpopular tax hike. So, Clinton had to deal with the repurcussions both in the party and in the country.
4. Bill and Hillary mangled health care. When you make Bob Dole appear both open and intelligent, you have screwed up.

So, the Clintons created a huge opening and Newt - who above all else is a great political strategist on a macro level - exploited all these weaknesses with the Contract for America.

[slackmaster]

43. The Scary-Looking Firearms a.k.a. "assault weapons" ban

The country was so close to evenly matched D vs. R, left vs. right, authoritarian vs. libertarian, etc. that a single issue was sufficient to tip the balance from one side to another.

[closeupready]

45. teh gays, of course.

teh gays are always a good scapegoat. :sarcasm:

[melm00se]

47. this is an easy

one (and I am sure that I'll get flamed for this but what the hell?)

Most folks on the extremes of political spectrum just d-o n-o-t get is that the USA is very centrist country and compared to our European brethern the USA is right leaning centrist country.

Woe betide the politician or political party who forgets that and attempts to move the country too far off the center balance point without good, popular and appealing reasons, they will swiftly find themselves out of office.

the 1994, 2006 and 2008 elections should provide ample evidence of this political fact.

The current political power situation makes it especially tenuous for the forces of liberalism - the country saw what 6 of 8 years with both the legislative and executive branch under the control of a single party/ideology and will, more than likely, not stand idly by if they perceive the country heading too far in one direction.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

49. I don't wish to flame you

But I'm not sure that I can fully agree with you. If you go by the polls on several issues, including the "hot button" ones like abortion and GLBT rights most people actually appear (at least currently) to be more on the liberal/progressive end than on the conservative end.
It's not entirely clear why, in light of that fact, we seem to get such a disproportionate number of reactionary conservatives and/or "centrist" milequetoasts/DLCers into office whom go out of their way to eschew "radicals" and any trace of "radicalism" within their ranks. My theory is that the corporate media and/or TPTB push this overarching so-called "conventional wisdom" narrative that our leaders must never stray too far one way or another (even though it seems the only time they're really worried about it is when Democrats are in power -I wonder why THAT is?). Our leaders seem to be deathly afraid of challenging this "conventional wisdom", presumably out of mortal fear for their political futures, which is probably how (and why) the "status quo" is preserved and those on either end of the political spectrum (but mostly on the much maligned "left") promoting more aggressive/structural change inevitably get "put in their place".
I don't think that the Republicans necessarily lost bad in 2006 and even worse in 2008 because they veered too far to the right (the extremists ran wild for 12 whole years after all!) but rather it was because the right couldn't use the cultural or "wedge" issues (abortion, GLBT rights, terrorism) as effectively during those elections due to all of the other much more pressing concerns people had that they didn't feel the Republicans were addressing (i.e. Economy, Iraq) and felt that the Democrats would (and hopefully WILL).

[WI_DEM]

53. First, the GOP effectively used the contract on America (they called it Contract For America)

and there was a huge postal scandal which the dem leadership pretty much ignored. They also focused on the Clinton economic program and successfully suggested that he increased taxes on everybody (this was before it became apparent that the Clinton program was working) and the health care debacle. Bill also didn't make friends among labor and liberal groups with his strong support for NAFTA which passed before the election.

[Octafish]

58. Flush Limpnuts no longer had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine

Gingrich even called the dope fiend and child sex addict a member of Congress.

"Mobilization of Bias" is how Professor Walter Dean Burnham of the University of Texas at Austin put it.

[sammym3]

59. Uninformed, ill-informed, and Limbaugh ditto heads.

That is all.

[newportdadde]

60. Almost every move by Clinton played perfectly into a Republican meme.

Don't ask, Don't tell - 'culture war', liberals are evil heathens etc.

Assault Weapons - 'Liberals want to take all your guns!!' - actually made this meme have the slightest credibility to a lot of voters.

Health care - propaganda from big insurance and pharmacy helped create the meme of a nanny state.

Not a meme but Rush and his ilk started catching fire in rural areas. This was caused by a couple of factors:

The first and most important is that farmers and workers in rural areas often only had AM radio, we lost any music we had and could only listen to Rush, Dr. Laura, Savage other trash etc.. trust me I was in a tractor all summer long in rural Missouri the summer of 94 and thats all you heard.

Second during that time many rural areas were dieing... meaning good paying jobs in the city had workers who wanted to 'get away from it all' coming into rural areas and buying up little plots of land 40 acres for 1000+ dollars an acre which they never saw because they just commuted all day... regular farmers couldn't afford to purchase or rent land anymore, this caused a backlash against people from 'the cities'. Nobody really talks about this but I believed it happened all over the country at that time and did have an impact.

Republicans exploited all of this perfectly.

[JNelson6563]

61. Complacency

The rise of talk radio, C-span, clever framing, Harry & Louise.....lots of reich-wing strategies. Meanwhile, back at the ranch (as it were) the DNC was busy hob-nobbing with celebs and running an 18 state national party while the big wigs pooh-poohed the notion of talk radio and such being effective.

It was the ugliest wake-up call in our political history. We woke up so late we missed the bus that day and many days after. It took the horror of many years of Rethug rule and ruin to finally get back on track. It helped having Dean at the DNC making sure we actually had functioning parties in every state and candidates even in the scary districts.

Julie

PS Edited to clarify on C-span, while not developed by the rethugs it was used effectively. Often times in the evening they'd be ranting in front of the camera to an empty chamber. Those who tuned in got earfuls of reich wing rhetoric and no rebuttals.

[JackRiddler]

64. Number One: A consequence of letting war criminals off...

even as the RW "Whitewatered" Clinton with bullshit charges.

You let them off on BCCI, Iran-Contra, CIA-drugs and the rest in the name of "moving on," the predictable consequence is that they TAKE OVER AGAIN.

No more important lesson can be learned today, with a new Bush regime having committed even worse crimes and with the whole world being painfully aware of it.

and

Number Two: playing the "moderate" game, which is actually the "capitulate always to right wing definitions game."

The one attempt to buck it was the health-care offensive - which was also self-crippled by way of not arguing for a clear, universal, single-payer plan that people could understand and support. Instead, they invited the insurance companies and health industry and pharmaceuticals to come in and wreck the plan, which was then blamed on Clinton.

Demobilizing the Left!

AWB, ETC. - these were the flags the right wing flew in returning, but these were not the reason they won. Clinton's weakness and unwillingness to fight for the things he supposedly believed in.

/

[JackRiddler]

67. kick for vital question (especially my brilliant answer!)

;)

[Redneck Socialist]

68. Guns.

AWB motivated a lot of folks to get out and vote.