PDA

View Full Version : Promises mean absolutely nothing to politicians


Mi_chief_fan
03-18-2001, 09:23 AM
.......by William F. Ast III
wast@heraldpalladium.com

It would be interesting to see the grades George W. Bush earned in his history classes. They must have been remarkably low.
Even recent history is evidently beyond him. For example, George II obviously does not remember the trouble his father, President George I, ran into by blandly violating a campaign promise.
As you recall, George I said during his election campaign "Read my lips! No new taxes." That pledge lasted until he got into office and found "no new taxes" was going to be inconvenient,so he violated that promise. I think he even tried calling it "revenue enhancement" rather than taxes. Or maybe that was some other political scoundrel.(But I repeat myself, as Mark Twain would have said.)
The voters were not charmed and the violation of that campaign pledge was almost certainly a significant factor in George I's subsequent loss to Bill Clinton. There now-see what happens when you break promises? You get Clinton. Serves you right.
George II last week finally shagged ex-President Clinton out of the headlines by violating a campaign pledge of his own, this one to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The violation came after reportedly heavy lobbying from business interests. That didn't take very long, did it?
Was that campaign promise a significant factor in George II's election? Probably, considering the tight race. Some voters who were concerned about the threat of global warming and pollution, but didn't like Al Gore or the Clinton Administration, thought they had found their man. Here was a fiscal conservative without evident moral baggage who would help protect the environment.
Surprise, surprise.
I saw replay's of George II's campaign statement's on carbon dioxide emissions. I'm afraid there is only 1 way to interpret those words-he was promising to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.(I'll admit I wasn't watching his hands-he may have had his fingers crossed. And I didn't hear anyone say "No crossies, George.")
The dictionary says a promise is "an oral or writen agreement to do or not to do something;vow" Look it up for yourself-it comes right after "promiscuous." Maybe it would help if we thought of George II's statements as a "pledge" instead. No, that turns ot to be "a promise or agreement." No help there.
I was watching "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on Wednesday when a shill for the business interests congratulated George II on his ability to recognize a mistake and reverse himself.
Excellent logic and let's extend that courtesy to the electorate. Perhaps the voters should be given the chance to recognize a mistake and reverse themselves.
It appears George II may be an untruthful politician. But I repeat myself.

;)

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2001, 03:22 PM
"The voters were not charmed and the violation of that campaign pledge was almost certainly a significant factor in George I's subsequent loss to Bill Clinton."

"Was that campaign promise a significant factor in George II's election? Probably, considering the tight race."

This is moronic. My little sister offers more evidence in her book reports. I understand that this may be an editorial, but that does not excuse his total lack of research and evidencial support.

morphius
03-18-2001, 03:38 PM
Mi - In his first run for President Clinton promised to not raise taxes, and the first thing he did was to say he changed his mind and yet still got re-elected, while having Congress under his parties control. Bush didn't have that luxery and I think most people knew who it was that raised taxes.

As for W, the people that were really worried about the enviorenment would have voted for Al Gore.

Mi_chief_fan
03-18-2001, 04:40 PM
I'm not agreeing (or disagreeing) with everything the guy wrote. I simply posted this because the popular opinion of posters on this board was that Bush was the more honest candidate. I was simply using this article to point out that when it's all said and done, he's a politician, and thus, a liar, no matter how 'moral' the guy appears.

Lighten up, fellas.......... ;)

Frazod
03-18-2001, 06:29 PM
My favorite quote about politicians, by Richard Jordan from Hunt for Red October: "I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollypops."

They ALL lie. They've ALL been bought by someone, or usually multiple someones. The best we can hope for is to get one that occasionally tells the truth. GW is certainly better in this department than Slick Willy - the day Clinton tells the truth about ANYTHING his head will probably explode.

Mi_chief_fan
03-18-2001, 06:41 PM
Frazod,

How'sthe new house?

Oh, BTW, agree 100% with your post. Just pointing out that politicians are politicians, no matter which party or what kind of background they come from.

morphius
03-18-2001, 07:19 PM
Mi - I agree, both sides lie and I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't agree with that.

Frazod
03-18-2001, 08:10 PM
MCF, the house is coming along quickly, but of course it seems agonizingly slow. The frame and roof are complete, the bathtubs and fireplace are installed, and they are now starting to put in the wiring. If all goes well, the place should be done in a little over a month. Of course, we can't move in until the wedding (end of June) unless her parents change their mind about that). No way I can get out of my lease anyway. It'll suck living here in this crappy apartment knowing the place is done and ready to go, but I guess I'll survive. Patience is NOT one of my virtues.

Of course, the main price of all this is MARRIAGE :mad: . I just went into the bathroom - for some reason, the BNC had thrown an empty package of Ramen noodles in the toilet. When I called her on it, she came in, fished out the package, then blew her nose with some toilet paper and threw THAT in the garbage (right next to the toilet). ARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

The price we pay for the things we want....

oleman47
03-19-2001, 09:32 AM
The flip flop is not so surprising nor are the reasons Bush gave. One, that we need more production and environmental concerns must be relegated to expediency. Consumption moderation hurts profits. And last, that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, and although CO2 is linked to global warming, this is not a problem since global warming is just a dubious threory. The real problem with his current position, which is consistent with his previous thoughts and actions, is why he ever said the opposite.

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 05:26 PM
First of all, I don't by that this little promise he made had much if anything to do with helping him in the final outcome. As someone stated in an earlier post, anyone who who is an envirometalist would have more likely than not voted for Algore.

I must say that I have not seen W's comments on this reversal, but could it be that he has not flopped but is merely holding off on increasing restrictions because of the current energy crisis? Again, I haven't seen the comments so I don't know if this is possible or not. But even if he has flipped, I must say that I am torn over it. While I am sick of broken promises and I much prefer seeing someone stick to their principals even if I don't agree with them, I am happy with this switch (if that is what it is). Government is to big and has to d@mn many restrictions on our lives. If W has flopped and decided to side with fewer regulations I am happy with that. I know there are some of you who say what about the ozone? What about it? For every study you give me showing that there is a hole in the ozone layer, I can give you another saying that isn't true. And we base policy on such shoddy evidence? What the he!! is that all about? Any ways, I am sad to see someone go back on their word, but at the same time happy that it means that there will not be another burdensome regulation heaped upon this country.

oleman47
03-19-2001, 05:42 PM
There is no study that shows there is no ozone hole, or that there is not global warming. Currently both are fact and the question is how long will they last, if Bush has his way they will last a long time. The problem with global warming is that some mathematicians think the basic formulas lead to explosive growth in temperatures which will extinguish all life. The other disconcerting factor is that at a 10 degree increase as is currently predicted, the process in not reversible. The process will be self sustaining and explosive.

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 05:49 PM
You guys,

It's not about placing more restrictions. It's not about controlling CO2 output. It's not even about whether you agree with what he did or not.

The fact is, he made a campaign promise, then reneged. Thus, he LIED, just as bad as Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
The only difference is that one got impeached for it.

Now, i'm not saying that I totally disagree with his refusal to endorse a bill to regulate further the output of co2, just that he PROMISED to do it, and HE'S A REPUBLICAN!In other words, how can you say we elected the more honest candidate? Isn't W just as much of a liar now as Gore?

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 05:57 PM
[url]http://www.ameritech.net/users/storm8/final.htm[url]

Alright, I know this was done by a high schooler, but to say that there are no studies saying the opposite is just untrue. There are more studies and I will post links to them as I find them.

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 06:05 PM
MCF,
did he lie, or have a change of mind? Now don't get me wrong, I am not going to go out of my way to defend him as the Clintonoids so blindy did for Der Schlickmeister. But we know that "I did not have sex with that woman..." could only be a lie. W may well have had a change of mind. Then again on the other hand, he may have lied through his teeth. We may never know. And from where I am sitting, if that broken promise results in less government regulations (control), than I will have mixed emotions about it. You see, to some people it will matter what promise it was he broke. I am kinda of that mind, I still find going back on your word as a big no no, but in this case it will play out for the good.

Ya'll keep trying to make Slick Willie look like an average Pres, but it won't stick.

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 06:14 PM
I'm not defending Willie at all. I think his legacy will speak(very poorly) for himself.

But a fact is a fact. W was championed as the 'honest' choice, and he lied. Period. If anything, you're going out of your way to defend W's lie.

Like I said, a 'good' lie is still a lie. My wife will argue with me all day that sometimes a lie, when used in the right circumstances, is a good thing. I simply disagree. Especially with an elected public official.

Just my opinion. Don't think any less of me...........

After all, I could never dislike someone with a moniker like 'Raiderhader'. ;)

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 06:29 PM
Why would I think any less of you? I hold no bad opinion of you whatsoever. I don't hate someone because of their philosophies.

I am not going out of my way to defend W. Trust me, if he pulls a fast one I'll be all over his rear like stink on doodoo. But I can't say for certain that he has pulled a fast one. He very well could have changed his mind. Again, I am not saying that is the case, just that it is a possibilty. Until I know for certain, I can't honestly judge his actions.

I tend to agree with you on the subject of lies not being good. I have been raised to belive that honesty is the best policy. But I can see a very few times when it might be the best way to go, in the matter of national security for instance. You can't always be honest about the things that go on behind the scenes for our nations best interest. But those times are very limited.

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 06:34 PM
Agreed.

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 06:37 PM
Alright that is what I like to see, everyone getting along and agreeing with me.:D

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 06:43 PM
Still love that signature. Wish I had it on a hat; my bosses would love it!

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 06:46 PM
You know, you could probably do it. I would try going to one of those t-shirt places where they customize shirts. Often times they do work with hats as well.

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:04 PM
Oleman,
here is a link to an article that I found. http://www.detnews.com/EDITPAGE/9708/22/1edit/1edit.htm
Below are a couple of out takes from the article.


All of this is based on the contention that there is a scientific "consensus" that global warming is a proven fact. But that has never been the case. Most climate scientists, if pushed, will admit that the evidence falls well short of conclusive. The real argument has been whether preventive measures should be taken in the absence of solid proof.

Moreover, recent articles in Science and the New Scientist magazines report that new climate data are raising severe doubts about the whole premise of global warming.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:10 PM
If you tell the wife that you will be sure to stop by the store on the way home from work and pick up some butter, but then come accross an accident where someone needs aid and therefor don't go get the butter, did you lie to your wife?

With all due respect to the posters on this thread, this is idiotic.

I didn't accuse Clinton of lying when he didn't give the middle class (or anyone) a tax break, I didn't accuse Bush (Sr) of lying when he permitted the Dems to force him into a tax hike, and I won't accuse Bush (Jr) of lying if he changes his mind on this issue.

What we want are politicians that make decisions on priorities, not mouthpieces that pass the buck and just do the popular thing.

Many of you sound like packfan on Carl Peterson; the politician will always be wrong.

BTW, for the record, I don't believe that all politicians are dishonest anymore than I believe most people are dishonest. Sociologists tell us that our own world view is often shaped by our own proclivities. In other words, if you think most people lie, a savy judge of character might feel less trusting towards you.

Luz
food for thought...

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:16 PM
Luz,
you didn't accuse Bush the Elder or Slick Willie of lying on taxes? Why not?

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:18 PM
On another note...

It is fact that there is an ozone 'hole' over at least one (if not both) pole(s).

What never seems to get mentioned is that there has always been an ozone hole, and according to ALL data, there always will be (at least until all volcanic activety on the planet Earth subsides ~ in about a billion years).

What's more, there is some evidense that indicates that the size of the holes fluxuate or are cyclic.

No one knows whether man's presence is having a measurable effect on this phenomena. What makes me mad is that I can't trust the enviromental movement to give me the straight scoop on it ~ they have repeatedly blown their credibility with their doom and gllom predictions and leftist politics.

Luz
there, i feel better now...

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:20 PM
raiderhader,

Because they didn't.

At best they changed their mind, at worst they reneged.

Lying is a serious accusation and the foulness of it should not be deluted by incorrect use.

Luz
getting it out of his system...

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:24 PM
Luz, that was my point about W. And i can see that point being made about his dad. But he!!, I knew during the campaing that Clinton had absolutely no intention whatsoever of cutting taxes, and I was only 11 at the time. If you say you are going to do something and no that you are not, than it is a lie. Were there really all that many people who actually belived Clinton on this?

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 07:27 PM
Luz,

With alldue respect, you missed the entire point. If I don't get my wife the butter, it's because something happened, not because I didn't intend to. Bush told a crowd that he intended to further restrict the emissions of co2, and now he 'had a change of heart', just to keep himself from being inconvenienced by resricting big business.

Like i've said, I don't necessarily disagree with him not signing the bill; it's that he lied, and of course,right wingers are coming out in droves to defend him, just like left wingers did Clinton.

So I ask you, Luz, the 'Chiefsplanet' resident genious, ;), what's the difference between W lying and Willie lying?
Just that if a Republican lies, it's for the 'good of the country?' Good for who?

BIG_DADDY
03-19-2001, 07:29 PM
I didn't even vote for W but if you are trying to compare him to Clinton you have got to be joking.

<IMG SRC="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/clinton_pinnochio.jpg";

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:29 PM
MCF,
could he have changed his mind because of an energy crisis? If so, that doesn't constitute lying under the current analogy.

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 07:31 PM
I depends on how you look at it. It looks like he lied, but if he was just trying to further lessen the impact of an energy crisis, he should have the good sense to explain it.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:32 PM
raiderhader,

I understand and sympothize with your position, but as someone so eliquently stated, you can't be inside a man's head and know his intentions.

I didn't bank on a middle class tax cut either, but I'm sure I can find just as many liberals that never believed Bush (Jr).

I believe the only high ground here is to judge a man on his actions. Predicting you're going to do something in the future is not the same as describing something you did in the past. Hindsight is always 20/20 and can (usually) be proven. The real issue is character. If Bush is a dishonest man, it will become apparant ~ just as it did with Clinton.

Luz
waiting to see any lies from either george bush...

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:36 PM
I need to start typing slower, or start using spell check...

Mi_Chief, how do you KNOW what his intentions were (are)?

Luz
carefull, this answer could justify every anti Clinton comment ever made!!!...

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:36 PM
MCF,
wait a minute! Hold everything! This is the dunce, the moron, the idiot, and now he is supposed to have the good sense to explain something? Is it just me, or is W only an idiot until he is needed to be smart so as to continue to heap crtisism on him.

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:41 PM
I didn't bank on a middle class tax cut either

Luz,
you see, even you knew it was a lie. He said one thing, you didn't belive him, and he acted accordingly.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:41 PM
BTW, I want to appologize if (in a moment of passion) any of my remarks could be misconstrued as disrespectful to anyone here.

As always, I was commenting on what was said, not the person(s) saying it.

When I get personal with someone, they usually know it.

Luz
right packfan???... :wink:

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:44 PM
No worries. I don't take much personal. I am the same way in fact, once I get going I start sounding very disrepctful. So I understand completely.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 07:50 PM
raiderhader,

It is my personal philosophy to try and judge others by the same scale I would want to be judged by.

I cannot prove he lied about his intentions on a tax cut. That doesn't mean I would have hesitated to place a wager on it in Vegas.

I can prove he lied to a judge and jury, thereby denying a US citizen their rightful day in court. I can prove he lied to the American public. I can prove he isthe most corrupt President of this century.

Why delute the strength of that legacy by claiming he lied on something unprovable?

we expect politicians to make the best decisions for the country, and then force them on the campaign to try and predict what those decisions will be at some later date in the future.

Luz
would you vote for a candidate that said, "i don't know, i'll have to see whether the enviroment or our energy sistuation is more important at that time"???...

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 07:57 PM
Luz,
I don't belive that it dilutes his pathetic legacy, but rather adds to it. Could you prove in a court of law that he lied? No. But in the court of public opinion, he has been found guilty of lying on the tax cut. And it is the people who would make up the jury, so...

Mi_chief_fan
03-19-2001, 08:18 PM
Luz,
I appreciate the fact that you explain yourself for sounding a bit condescending. I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Raiderhader,(and Luz)

As for his 'intentions', I believe he knew all along what he was going to do; he played the politician, said the right thing(at the time) and then after he got elected, realized it didn't fit his 'agenda', and thus reneged on a campaign promise. I doubt either of you would disagree. Whether it's actually best for the country, or what W thinks is best for the country wasn't the point: the point was, he clearly reneged, and you & I have different views on it.I don't KNOW that was his intentions, nor do you know his intentions to the contrary, whether you admit it or not.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 08:31 PM
Mi_chief_fan,

You prove my point.

Renegging is not the same as lying. If he is dishonest (as you suggest), then it will become apparant (and provable). To brand him that way in advance, however, does not fit my personal model of ethics.

I guess I'm not willing to assume that all politicians are evil.

One definition of politics is non-violent conflict. Another is the art of compromize. Do you suggest that either of these is unethical or evil?

Luz
appreciating the leeway to espouse my views...

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 08:31 PM
MCF,
if you will recall in earlier post I clearly stated that I have know knowledge of his intentions. I have not said that he changed his mind for sure, and I have not said the he has lied for sure. I am not trying to defend him, but rather put all options on the table.

As to him reneging, Luz clearly stated that there is a difference between that and lying. Now if he said one thing, but knew that he would reneg on it, that would be a lie. But we don't know that to be the case. Unlike with Slick Willie where you knew he was lying because his mouth was open.

kcfanintitanhell
03-19-2001, 08:34 PM
I don't want to come across as a Green Peacer, but if there's even a chance that the global warming predictions are correct-do you think that our children's children will remember who Bill Cllinton was, if they have to wear masks whenever they go outdoors, when they are starving because nothing will grow? GWBII has 3 years, 307 days left in his term. I have a feeling future generations will remember him, for good or evil. I hope he acquires a conscience somewhere down the line.

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 08:42 PM
If he is dishonest (as you suggest), then it will become apparant (and provable).

Luz,
to go back to our discussion of Clinton lying about the tax cut, you say that if someone is dishonest it will be provable. Well Clinton already had that reputation coming into the '92 race. Therefore I, and whoever else, did not prejudge him, but rather judged him on his previous actions.



kfith,
if there is a chance of being eaten by a shark, why do people still go into the ocean? If there is a 1 in 10 chance that a mean grizzly bear is in the woods, would you still go hiking? I have heard that the chances of global warming is something like one in a million (it could have been billion but I am not sure). Yet the chance of getting into a car wreck is far, far greater than that, but you still drive don't you?

Luzap
03-19-2001, 08:48 PM
kcfanintitanhell,

You bring up an interesting point. Is the proclaimed apocalypse serious enough to take a chance?

Let me rephrase it though, and see if it still sounds the same...

Just because one political party makes a HUGE accusation, should we judge it on it's merits, or should we react only because the allegations are sooo serious?

What if that same political party has a history of making wild accusations in order to scare an electorate to it's way of thinking?

The left's track record on enviromentalism is that of a chicken little.

Luz
methinks prudence is the best course of action...

[Edited by Luzap on 03-19-2001 at 08:51 PM]

kcfanintitanhell
03-19-2001, 08:50 PM
Sharks are not going to affect everyone on the planet, and neither are grizzly bears. Not unless they start driving 8-cylinder SUVs

Raiderhader
03-19-2001, 08:53 PM
Besides the point. The point is that people take unnecessary risks every day. And those risks are far more likely to happen. And what about the driving? That doesn't affect everyone (or close to) on the planet?

Luzap
03-19-2001, 08:54 PM
kcfanintitanhell,

Welcome to the bb.

I still would be interested in your views on my last post.

Luz
always welcoming new ideas...

kcfanintitanhell
03-19-2001, 09:06 PM
Luzap-I totally agree with you on the track record of the Left's Chicken Little philosophy-which is why I felt it necessary to emphasize upfront that I was not of that persuasion. I just feel that after all the political posturing from both sides of the spectrum, we need to figure out, in a very realistic manner, just what we need to do to make our environment a stable place for future generations to live.

kcfanintitanhell
03-19-2001, 09:23 PM
Raiderhader-The driving thing is interesting: 80% of the people in Mexico City don't drive, and auto emissions are responsible for about 50% of their pollution, which is why mexico City is one of the worst air-quality cities in the world. Not a lot of Eskimos drive, either-ask them about the Exxon Valdez.

oleman47
03-19-2001, 09:29 PM
Raiderhaider

I said there is an ozone hole and you said there was no proof which is ridiculous as your own articles prove. The other fact is there has been a global warming for most of last century. That is a fact.

You are now arguing the theory of why these exist or will cease to exist or are not a problem but not the point I was making. That as of now is hole in the ozone and the planet has warmed. This is no more a leftest plot than gravity is the red menace.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 09:53 PM
oleman47,

When I was a child, all agreed that the planet was moving in to another ice age. It was easy to believe because the winters were long and cold, and the snow piled high.

How do you reconcile these earlier predictions and beliefs with the current 180 degree shift? Did the data change?

How far back do reliable global weather data extend? Do we have more long term data now ~ or just short term data to base your postulates on (much the same way they postulated the coming ice age)?

I find it hard to believe that we have better long term data now than we did then.

Luz
your responce???...

oleman47
03-19-2001, 10:00 PM
Raiderhaider

I think you will find with a little more research, four years later than your editorial, which admitted the heating of the earth, additional intelligence has raised the level of concern. Which, as you mentioned, any high schooler is probably aware. The very latest has given empirical evidence to worries expressed previously by the mathematics of the situation. There will be those that will have to fry before they pay attention.

To me this is getting like the, "tobacco is harmless", scientists.

Luzap
03-19-2001, 10:03 PM
oleman47,

Are my coments not worthy of responce?

Luz
may be jumping the gun...

oleman47
03-19-2001, 10:28 PM
Luzap,

Climatologists use pollen remains, tree rings, flora imprints in fossils and other methods to recreate, approximate, the temperatures. There are some based on gas escaping from stones and other estoric methods to search way back. Before man there was much more co2 than today. There have periods of heat and cold, very cold. Some of this is due to the rotational dynamics of the earth. But the historical records do not indicate such a quick rise as currently in progress. The computer models had predicted an exponential increase but this was felt to be bad modeling until the last couple of years. Then the very lastest is that previously predicted 2 degree increase looks like a 10 degree increase now.

It is true if it gets cold in New York City the press will latch on to someone to predict a new Ice Age, but all this goes away in the spring. We know exactly the rate of heating for 100+ years, and we have pictures of glaciers then and now, and the reach of flora into previous too cold areas, etc. We also know that Mars got cold and Venus got hot. But we have no experiment to prove the mathematics beyond all doubt covering all the parameters. We may never know. In experiments with the parameters we do know, the odds are rising for a calamity.


The disturbing part is the exponential. The irreversibility. Until recently, the threat was the oceans would rise and the corn shift north, etc. not the turning the earth to gas and rock.

Mi_chief_fan
03-20-2001, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Luzap
Mi_chief_fan,

You prove my point.

Renegging is not the same as lying. If he is dishonest (as you suggest), then it will become apparant (and provable). To brand him that way in advance, however, does not fit my personal model of ethics.

I guess I'm not willing to assume that all politicians are evil.

One definition of politics is non-violent conflict. Another is the art of compromize. Do you suggest that either of these is unethical or evil?

Luz
appreciating the leeway to espouse my views...

Luzap,
I don't see how i've proven anything. The only thing apparent is that I consider breaking a promise dishonest, and you don't. That's fine, I can live with that.

I didn't suggest all politicians are evil, I suggest that they are dishonest. To take it a step further, I will say that they are at least deceptive. It's how they get elected. Which is at the heart of the matter: the candidate(Bush) said one thing when it was convenient for him trying to get elected, and then found it to be decidedly inconvenient when elected.

You call it 'compromise', i'll call it 'breaking campaign promises'.

Luzap
03-20-2001, 07:53 AM
Mi_chief_fan,

In truth, I don't think we're that far apart on this.

As I stated earlier, the qualities that make a good elected official are not compatible with the qualities that make a good campaigner.

I certainly don't uphold deceit, but I believe you're being oblivious to an important distinction.

Ex: In a job interview, you tell the company that as their new IT Mgr you will accomplish x by doing y and z. When you are hired and start implementing systems, you discover that it would be better for the company to achieve x by the route of a, b, and c, and do so.
After implementation, you go back and tell the company that you did it just as you said you would (via y and z).

Which is the dishonest act? Outlining your strategy, or lying about it after the fact?

One is an error, the other is a lie.

It seems to me that the path of honor lies with doing the right thing and not lying about it afterwords. The only thing worse... would be to 'wimp out' and not do the right thing at all.

Our current political climate causes many politicians to 'wimp out' rather than face the repercussions. The Founding Fathers never visualized electing officials based on promises, they assumed we would elect men that shared our core beliefs and would then act responsibly. This is why we are a Republic, not a Democracy by proxy.

Luz
the American electoate needs to be careful in what it asks for...

Baby Lee
03-20-2001, 08:49 AM
A couple of things. First, I seriously doubt if the demographic data would support a contention that George Bush got anywhere with the electorate by 'out-greening' Gore. Therefore the people who are most vocal about the 'broken promise' are those who did not support Bush and did not vote for him. It takes some 'brass ones' to say 'I don't support his policies' then turn aorund and say 'I'm so dissolutioned, I can't believe he would bend his policies' when he realizes another imperative in the mix.

Second [and this may be where things get cynical], I think there is a contingent that realizes that solving the energy crisis is the path back to consumer confidence and are a little dismayed to think that Bush might do something to help turn around the floundering ship of an economy evidenced of late.

That said, I am all for solid steps at conservation. But escalating energy costs couldn't come at a worse time, what with people finally realizing that 'inyourunderwear.com' will not fund their retirement. I say, let the market gain a little rationality, get some measures in place to encourage people to lessen their massive consumer credit debt, THEN start bending Bush's ear about getting back on the CO2 emissions standards.

Archie F. Swin
03-20-2001, 09:49 AM
My opinion on the matter is a little more elementary.

By pushing the tax cut, Bush pleased many Republican voters.

Not backing down on environmental "concerns" would have pleased many typical Democratic voters.

I think, in order to be successsful in the eyes of both parties, he must not ignore the intrests of one party.

Create the "Bush Democrat"


Chief Red "K.I.S.S." Pants