Ironworks Gaming Forum - It's 1994 All Over Again

As the weeks roll forward and you hear more about the GOP's trotting out of its new "Pledge to America," try not to forget 1994.

Whatever the Pledge tries to promise, don't forget that it's likely a lie. Remember 1994.

In 1994 the Republicans offered the "Contract with America," which right off ought to sound eerily similar to you. In this Contract they promised such things as term limits (3 terms), balancing the budget, and an end to pork projects. This Contract was attached to Newt's shield as he picked up his lance and tilted at the imaginary windmills of a progressive state on its ways to communism led by Billy-Boy Clinton.

The idea had legs, and the "Gingrich Revolution" succeeded. Only thing was, it immediately abandoned its principles. Once Newt and Co. had control, suddenly term limits weren't important -- Hey! the good guys don't need term limits! Suddenly balancing the budget and getting rid of pork wasn't important -- Hey! We obviously wanted Gingrich's pork or we wouldn't have voted for them!

So, be wary is all I can say. And, as a disclaimer here, I take NONE (i.e. ZERO) of my criticism for Newt's revolution from Democrats. It all comes from Republicans, such as Joe Scarborough. He was part of the revolution, and was sorely disappointed about the lie that it became. Oh, he did keep his pledge to leave after 3 terms. He was one of only two who kept that promise.

It's like deja vu all over again.

So.... what, if anything, is different this time around?

Well, the Contract was short, concise, precise promises. It was straightforward and brief.

There were promises in it that struck me as quaint throwbacks to the days of ignorance and yester-yore, such as the "Personal Responsibility Act" which makes sure to punish pregger teens by cutting them off from welfare -- That'll show them little bitches! And their little bastard babies, too! (insert wicked witch cackle)

There were promises in it I always hate, such as "Tort Reform" which always comes in the form of "we must cap punitive damages so that companies can run proper actuarial tables when they make the cost/benefit decision to kill consumers with their products." -- Of course it did have a nice "loser pays" provision that I think IS in fact responsible tort reform.

Then there were promises I really like, such as "Citizen Legislature" promising a law to enact term limits on elected officials --- LOVE it (in theory, had it happened, and not been a myth, etc.).

You can read it here: http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Now, our current Pledge.... well, it's not so clear and concise. It's 21 pages of rambling against the government, with tables and charts and pie graphs. It's a treatise of sorts, with lots of ad hominem in it. Too many adjectives for a document of any serious merit. Lots of "What we're up against" discussion which translates to "boo-hooing" as well as setting up lots of straw men to knock down (anytime someone is framing the opposing sides argument for you, they are teeing up a straw man to knock off a pedestal). Lots of "did you know?" sidebar info, almost all of which is conjecture. They spend a lot of time calling "taxes" what THEY say will be the costs of Obama programs, like Health Care Reform, when their numbers are debatable and, moreover, have always run counter to the non-partisan CBO's projections.

But, what do they offer? The Contract had 10 big items of legislation that it offered. The Pledge has.... um.... themes.... metaphors... ideas.... and, um, goals. Basically. It's a lot of railing, without much rallying. A lot of bark, no bite.

Hey, at least they've learned the lesson of 1994: If you don't actually promise clear things, it will be hard for people to say you lied a year from now. ;)

Read it here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...922_REPUBS.pdf