Questions about 1994 (i'm too young to remember)

[kvnf]

I'm 20 years old, a little to young to have been interested in politics back in 1994, when the republicans took over the house.
But this event is interesting to me. I wonder why it happened, how it happened, and what other's memories are from that election year.

In particular, if you're from Washington state (like me), I'm wondering if you can fill me in on exactly how a great guy like Tom Foley (i've seen him speak at the UW) got beaten by a shmuck like Nethercutt.

Comments?

[yowzayowzayowza]

1. Might start here:

http://www.townhall.com/documents/contract.html

Contract with America
1994

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

...

[bluestateguy]

2. 1994

That was the darkest election night I can ever remember. 2002 is nothing comapred to that awful experience.

Foley sued the voters of the state of Washington over a term limits law they passed, and term limits were all the rage in the 1990's. His district was also moving Right. Foley abandoned his opposition to gun control and voted for the assault weapons ban, infuriating the NRA and rural Washingtonians. Foley only won with 55% in 1992 and the district had a lot of Perot voters in the 90's.

[kvnf]

3. interesting

Thanks for filling me in on that...
Yeah they sure love their guns out there in eastern Washington. He must have felt invincible after--what--40 years in the House?

Dems in Washington have made come-backs, though. Maria Cantwell, who was kicked out that year, is now our junior Senator (I'm not totally enthusiastic about her, but at least she's a democrat), and Jay Inslee is back in the House.

But it seems to me that Democrats have lost rural areas. It's unfortunate.

[ozymandius]

4. There was anti-war backlash too.

The Democrats who voted against going to war against Iraq in 1991 were vilified by the Republicans. They said: "See. We had a very successful war for freedom of the Kuwaiti people and the Democrats were against their liberation."

This tactic was a bludgeoning stick used by the Republicans. Only later was it learned that the much of the evidence used to justify the "altruistic" principles of the war were fabricated.

[izzie]

5. Face it the House was pretty bad.

Bad checks, the Wright book deal, Gingrich endless talks and lies on c-span when he would keep it open for houres with his rants,the people seemed to be ready to get rid of the bums , so to speak.It was like any one in was to be voted out. Time to clean house once more?

[no name no slogan]

13. Foley had some ethics problems, too, IIRC

I believe Foley was involved in some sort of ethics scandal, too, involving the House bank/credit union and a couple other things that tarnished his record.

I unfortunately spent election night with on a date with a fellow political junkie who happened to be a die-hard Republican southern belle from MS, and a big Trent Lott fan. However, by then I was so fed up and disgusted with the Dems after Clinton's NAFTA support and "universal" healthcare flip-flop that I honestly didn't care that he got dope-slapped by the Newt and the GOP.

By then, the congressional Democrats (who controlled BOTH houses) had proven themselves so inneffectual at gettinig their liberal agenda past the Rockefeller Republican president that voters were truly frustrated with what was going on.

Most liberal/progressive Dems (like myself) were thoroughly disgusted with Clinton's selling out to the Repubs (at the expense of his majority in congress) that we either chose to stay home or voted third party when the choice was available.

IMHO, 1994 was a thorough repudiation of the DLC's centrist business-friendly message. It made it that much easier for Perot and Nader to mount 3rd party campaigns in 1996 (Clinton STILL didn't get a majority of the popular vote then, either, despite being a shoe-in).

'94 was a bad year for Democrats, and we still have yet to learn its lessons.

[ACK]

6. Complacent/Fractured Dems

The Democrats were fractured many of them fighting against the Clintons on a number of issues including universal healthcare. Sam Nunn from my home state of GA tried to apply a plastic fork into the back of the Clintons at the time if I remember.

There was also a lot of anger toward incumbents. The nation felt that many of them were pandering to special interests and moving around with their own agendas.

On top of that, the opposition was organized. They had the Contract on America and the Dems complacent and fat with pork could not see the train coming over their own bloated bellies.

In addition, the complacency and arrogance and disarray of the Dems led to an inability to move forward on initiatives that could have given them weight as a party of action. They could not see the failings and the reform needed in many government agencies and policies.

So, the Repukes come in and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To this day, despite some modest gains and the re-election of Clinton, the Dems have never really gotten themselves back together.

This leads into the one thing that ticks me off about many of the people here at DU. They are completely nostalgic for the 90's and hate the 80's. It was nice having a Dem in the white house despite the nonsense scandals. However, I would assert it is actually more important to have the congress. The Repub revolution of the 90's led us straight into the horror of BushCo. Not only that, some people here wander about acting like they never saw it coming.

I would also assert that Raygun would have been as bad if not worse than shrub if he had not had the balancing factor of a Dem Congress to stop his silly butt. After all, how many of the Raygun administration either were indicted or put on trial? Plenty. Brave men like Tip O'Neil fought hard against the Raygun way. People forget that quick.

[ldoolin]

9. Not here?

Nostalgic for the 1990s? No way! That was the decade that should never have happened.

There were a lot of reasons why Nethercutt won in 1994; one of them was the rise of reich wing talk radio. In rural Washington, talk radio served as kind of a grassroots "flash mob" medium for the right. One of the local reich wing talk hosts would announce that Hillary Clinton was going to be in town that evening, and 5000 reich wing nuts would be there to protest. Quite an obscene situation back then. Payback time for 1994, and for those radio stations like KVI (better known as KKKVI) that acted as organizing tools for the reich wing, is long overdue.

Also there was a Rethug group called De-Foley-8 (referring to the 8th Congressional Disctrict), that ran a very well funded and organized campaign; the Rethugliscum made defeating Foley a top priority nationally.

[theboss]

7. Any number of things happened

1. Clinton's first two years were a bit of a fiasco. His economic plan barely passed and was seen as typical "tax and spend" Democractic policy (which it wasn't). Health care completely blew up in his face. And he simply had not hit his stride as a statesman. Combine that with the fact that he won with 43 percent to begin with, and the Dems were not exactly sitting in a strong position.

2. Gingrich, to his credit, completely changed the way House campaigns are run. He nationalized it with the Contract for America. In other words, I think he managed to change the way voters thought when they voted for House members. It wasn't the usual, which candidate is best for my district? It was, which Party do I want in the House?

3. Demographics is destiny. The South and Southwest grew in populuation in the 80s and began to shift to the Republican column. In 1994, the Republicans finally converted that shift into votes.

It was a disaster. I was covering elections in NJ and was assigned to the Republican "Victory" Party. That candidate lost (I can't even remember who it was or what he was running for). But the place was eupohoric as all the Republican wins started being announced.

[bobbieinok]

10. someone here a while ago said there was a big scandal

going on that diverted attention from politics. OJ Simpson, maybe...

Newt took control of the language; there's a link somewhere about that.

Clinton started off in 92 VERY SLOWLY. They were not ready to be up and running.

That's one thing bushII should have carved into every democrat's brain. They had their list of cabinet appointees (with talking points) up and running probably before the convention; the most important first. Remember: Ashcroft was being 'interviewed' by the senate in late january or early february.

Clinton floundered the first year or so. The key of their campaign - health insurance - was badly handled and open to attack.

The media turned against Clinton almost immediately.

I always suspected they wanted a new guy in so they could become big time investigative reporters.

[Yupster]

8. The thing about the Contract was ...

I think it was a tremendous success because even though most people didn't have a clue what was in it, it showed that the Republicans had a plan. The news from the House was all about corruption, and some of it like the check-writing scandal was really low class sleazy. So the people saw things were messed up and they saw the other side had a plan to deal with it.

Big names were wiped out besides Foley. Also getting booted were Ann Richards and Mario Cuomo. It was the biggest sea-change I've ever seen.

[bobbieinok]

11. Someone a while back on DU said that in 92 something was

going on that diverted attention from politics. OJ Simpson, maybe...

Newt took control of the language; there's a link somewhere about that.

Clinton started off in 92 VERY SLOWLY. They were not ready to be up and running.

That's one thing bushII should have carved into every democrat's brain. They had their list of cabinet appointees (with talking points) up and running probably before the convention; the most important first. Remember: Ashcroft was being 'interviewed' by the senate in late january or early february.

Clinton floundered the first year or so. The key of their campaign - health insurance - was badly handled and open to attack.

The media turned against Clinton almost immediately.

I always suspected they wanted a new guy in so they could become big time investigative reporters.

[SpiralHawk]

12. 1994 was the year the first White Buffalo was born

A watershed year.

There are14 White Buffalo among us now.

It is as the elders said it would be.


"You can never change things by resisting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete." -Buckminster Fuller