Where did the "campaign promise" thing even come from?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

To my ears Bush promised to destroy America. Promise kept, worst president ever.

Bush's father promised not to raise taxes. Breaking that promise was one of the best things he ever did.

Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war" which was certainly an implicit promise. But (for reasons I will never grasp) people think highly of Woodrow Wilson.

Whether Obama promised one thing or another is irrelevant to its merits.

And no one is obliged to favor or disfavor any policy in light of whether it was or was not promised.

Our elections are binary choices. Had Barack Obama promised to smash out my brake-lights with a tire iron I still would have voted for him.

I don't think he promised single-payer health-care or getting out of Afghanistan or any of this stuff.

But that is irrelevant to an assessment of policy either way.

Casting a vote for president isn't a contract. It obliges us to no subsequent positions or views.

[Captain Hilts]

1. True. Being president is very different from being a candidate. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. From the people who keep saying "He broke his promise!" or "He lied to us"

Not so! He *always* was wrong.

[Andy823]

3. Good points.

What some seem to fail to understand is change takes time, and Obama has a tough job trying to fix the mess Bush got us into. Right now the number one priority is the economy, and after that is working again like it should, then he can take on other issues. Now I can understand republicans using this "campaign promise" thing to attack him, but for democrats to do this is simply helping the right wing smear machine, and that's just crazy!

[Realtalk]

4. I agree...

Thanks.

[ArchieStone1]

5. It is not ok to say one thing during the campaign and do another once elected

People vote based on what candidates outline as their plan.

[spoony]

6. Bra-fucking-vo

It's getting really old hearing that we can't ever, under any circumstances, expect anything other than what was specifically mentioned in campaigning. It's just condescending rubbish when people use that "he never promised you a pony" bullshit in response to legitimate policy arguments, usually because they don't have any other response.

[asphalt.jungle]

7. if someone's argument is that he's breaking promises and lying. what else can you tell them

other than he didn't say anything different on the campaign trail? all they have to do is say "he was wrong on the campaign trail and he's wrong now." but calling him a breaker of promises/liar is bang out of order. a lot of people are revealing themselves to be just as uninformed as those they like to condemn because don't care about the political process.

[denem]

8. 1940: FDR promised to keep US out of Europe

Lend-Lease anyone?

[Occam Bandage]

9. It's a direct response to people claiming "betrayal," "broken promises," and the like.

That's about all.

[frylock]

10. i think the instances of "betrayal,"or "broken promises" is largely overstated here..

one thing that was promised for certain was CHANGE. when folks see that our healthcare system isn't really going to change in any signifigant way, or our failed drug policy is going to remain in place, then people are obligated to say something. unfortunately, there's an Obama policy SWAT team that is based here, and they like to overdramatize legit criticism by constructing the "he never promised blahblahblah" strawmen arguments.

[Occam Bandage]

11. "overstated." "they like to overdramatize." | "Obama policy SWAT team."

This is the problem with DU.

[frylock]

12. break it down..

explain the problem with my statement. you can't deny that one particular poster, with their embarassingly sugary diatribes on "obama broken promise number 1,116,137", isn't overdramatizing the posts criticizing some of the Obama teams policy moves.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Sure. You're whining about people "overdramatizing" things,

and then decide to make that point by preposterously overdramatizing about SWAT teams and such. In my eyes one of the biggest problems with internet discussion forums such as DU is that most people think that any rhetorical tactics they or those who think like them might use are fair and valid, while the exact same rhetorical tactics when used by their opponents are unfair and offensive.

[frylock]

14. when the same poster is consistently posting the first reply to threads..

criticizing Obama, then that indicates to me that they are actively looking for such posts with the intent of squelching any type of dissent. i agree that are obvious disruptors, and they should be called out as such. but there's a lot of whining and crying on both sides, and i don't need to be reminded that this is a "Democratic" site just because i take exception to some of Obama's cabinet picks or policy decisions. the hyperbole swings both ways.

in the interest of full disclosure, Obama was not my first, or even fourth choice, but he was FAR better than the alternative. i just happen to think it would be nice to throw the progressive community a bone now and then rather than bending over backwards to appease the conservatives who'll (as we've seen over and over) never be satisified no matter how many concessions are made on their behalf. i also happen to like the guy on a personal level, and have been more than willing to give him some room. but again, the rahrah he's our president so shuddup cuz he has a (D) in front of his name are bullkrap.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Such people are silly, of course. Are they common?

I have never seen anyone ever claim that Barack Obama promised to legalize pot.

Ever.

I have seen many, many attacks on those claims, most of the mocking variety.

It is possible that I have the key "promise claimers" on ignore.

(I mean that seriously. Anyone who uses the ignore feature a lot doesn't get a representative picture.)