It's Been 16 Months

[Double Trouble]

Here's a hypothetical question that may or may not having anything to do with this topic...

If a politician makes a campaign promise, then gets elected and either the situation changes or they learn new information or just rethink their position, should they ignore this in favor of keeping their campaign promise above all else? Or is changing your mind when the facts support it a mark of an intelligent person?

I'm serious, because it seems like the issue of "flip-flopping" totally eclipses the particular issues being "flip-flopped" on. In many, if not most, cases, people who disagreed with a politician's initial position ALSO disagree with that politician if he switches sides. I feel like it's hard to hold both those positions simultaneously. It seems pretty goofy to think a candidate was wrong to hold a particular position, and is also wrong when he changes his mind.

It honestly feels like "gotcha" politics and not actual debate. Politics should be, above all, about ISSUES...and our commentary on the politicians involved should be based on their position on the issues, not negative thing we can manage to tag them with. And while their intelligence and decision making skills can also be factors, I still don't really buy the argument that changing your mind, ever, is a bad thing.

Certainly, it's a valid question. I would hope that whoever is leading the country is capable of re-evaluating things at any given point in light of changes around him, and act accordingly. I don't have a problem with that kind of "flip flop", with one major caveat: the politician has to be up front about it and say (to the extent possible, clearly national security issues can't be discussed) what changed and what his new position is and why.

For example, Obama campaigned a lot on open and transparent government, promising to make meetings open and broadcast on cspan etc. Then, when things got heated with the health care bill, he did a complete 180, backroom dealings galore, nothing broadcast anywhere, secret meetings, bills signed into law before anyone had ever even read them etc. I'd have some respect for him if he had come out and said "I no longer believe in an open and transparent government, I've changed my mind, and here's why". But he didn't. He proved that he had just lied during the campaign, like every other scumbag before him.

 

[Rainsford]

The American people were fooled. Again.

We'll be out of Iraq in 16 months. No mandated health insurance. Rein in Wall Street. We'll close Guantanamo. Blah, blah, blah.

The only people who were fooled would have been those who believe a campaign promise is an ironclad guarantee that the politician in question would do exactly what he said, on exactly the timetable he laid out, irrespective of other concerns. When I hear a campaign promise, I think in terms of what the candidate's plans are, what they would LIKE to do if elected.

When Obama said he'd close Gitmo, I admired his desire to do something about it and hoped he could get it done. When it turned out that there was incredibly viscous opposition in Congress and real security issues brought up by the military and intel communities, I didn't feel like I was "fooled" when Obama didn't immediately close Gitmo. Because while he didn't get it done as fast as I would have liked, at least he wants to do it and probably still plans to...which gets him points with me considering the guy he ran against didn't even go that far.

That's pretty much my objection to this kind of political point scoring. Based on threads like this, politicians are better off having no plans and promising nothing.

 

[umbrella39]

I must have missed the part where the fanbois agreed to a timetable.

 

[Lanyap]

Obama lied, people died.

That sounds familiar.

 

[Slew Foot]

Hope and change

 

[charrison]

The only people who were fooled would have been those who believe a campaign promise is an ironclad guarantee that the politician in question would do exactly what he said, on exactly the timetable he laid out, irrespective of other concerns. When I hear a campaign promise, I think in terms of what the candidate's plans are, what they would LIKE to do if elected.

When Obama said he'd close Gitmo, I admired his desire to do something about it and hoped he could get it done. When it turned out that there was incredibly viscous opposition in Congress and real security issues brought up by the military and intel communities, I didn't feel like I was "fooled" when Obama didn't immediately close Gitmo. Because while he didn't get it done as fast as I would have liked, at least he wants to do it and probably still plans to...which gets him points with me considering the guy he ran against didn't even go that far.

That's pretty much my objection to this kind of political point scoring. Based on threads like this, politicians are better off having no plans and promising nothing.

But as the critics of closing gitmo stated during the campaign, "close gitmo and then do what?" There was never more of plan than close gitmo, which is pretty obvious a hollow promise as there are some nasty people detained there.

 

[Rainsford]

But as the critics of closing gitmo stated during the campaign, "close gitmo and then do what?" There was never more of plan than close gitmo, which is pretty obvious a hollow promise as there are some nasty people detained there.

OK, first of all, we really need to stop pretending terrorists are Batman villains who need to be housed in that particular prison or they'll get out and run loose in the streets. Can we have a discussion of Gitmo that doesn't make me think people think we're housing the Joker there?

In any case though, the real issue with closing Gitmo is the political bullshit surrounding doing so, NOT any practical issues that Obama just avoiding thinking about (and I bet you he DID think about the practical steps he'd need to take). While it may have been politically naive to not anticipate hysterical Congressmen and Senators going on Fox News and screaming about how Obama was going to release terrorists into your living room if he closed Gitmo, I'm not sure that's grounds to call his pledge a "hollow promise".

 

[charrison]

OK, first of all, we really need to stop pretending terrorists are Batman villains who need to be housed in that particular prison or they'll get out and run loose in the streets. Can we have a discussion of Gitmo that doesn't make me think people think we're housing the Joker there?

In any case though, the real issue with closing Gitmo is the political bullshit surrounding doing so, NOT any practical issues that Obama just avoiding thinking about (and I bet you he DID think about the practical steps he'd need to take). While it may have been politically naive to not anticipate hysterical Congressmen and Senators going on Fox News and screaming about how Obama was going to release terrorists into your living room if he closed Gitmo, I'm not sure that's grounds to call his pledge a "hollow promise".

Close gitmo and put the prisoners where? Gitmo is a perfectly good prison for these people, why close it?

Hell the best thing obama could have done is renamed gitmo, put it under management and caledl it a day.

 

[CycloWizard]

Here's a hypothetical question that may or may not having anything to do with this topic...

If a politician makes a campaign promise, then gets elected and either the situation changes or they learn new information or just rethink their position, should they ignore this in favor of keeping their campaign promise above all else? Or is changing your mind when the facts support it a mark of an intelligent person?

I'm serious, because it seems like the issue of "flip-flopping" totally eclipses the particular issues being "flip-flopped" on. In many, if not most, cases, people who disagreed with a politician's initial position ALSO disagree with that politician if he switches sides. I feel like it's hard to hold both those positions simultaneously. It seems pretty goofy to think a candidate was wrong to hold a particular position, and is also wrong when he changes his mind.

It honestly feels like "gotcha" politics and not actual debate. Politics should be, above all, about ISSUES...and our commentary on the politicians involved should be based on their position on the issues, not negative thing we can manage to tag them with. And while their intelligence and decision making skills can also be factors, I still don't really buy the argument that changing your mind, ever, is a bad thing.

In general, I agree with you. However, Obama has gone out of his way to break virtually every campaign promise he made. The Iraq one is especially poignant as that seemed to be one of the biggest reasons he was elected and nothing really changed between when he said it (repeatedly for months) and when he took office: it was simply a lie with its only motivation being to get him in office. This is made worse because of one of the other reasons he was elected: he was thought to be an honest politician who would do what was right, and this is one of hundreds of campaign lies (as opposed to campaign promises) which have shattered his mystique.

 

[Siddhartha]

Here's a hypothetical question that may or may not having anything to do with this topic...

If a politician makes a campaign promise, then gets elected and either the situation changes or they learn new information or just rethink their position, should they ignore this in favor of keeping their campaign promise above all else? Or is changing your mind when the facts support it a mark of an intelligent person?

I'm serious, because it seems like the issue of "flip-flopping" totally eclipses the particular issues being "flip-flopped" on. In many, if not most, cases, people who disagreed with a politician's initial position ALSO disagree with that politician if he switches sides. I feel like it's hard to hold both those positions simultaneously. It seems pretty goofy to think a candidate was wrong to hold a particular position, and is also wrong when he changes his mind.

It honestly feels like "gotcha" politics and not actual debate. Politics should be, above all, about ISSUES...and our commentary on the politicians involved should be based on their position on the issues, not negative thing we can manage to tag them with. And while their intelligence and decision making skills can also be factors, I still don't really buy the argument that changing your mind, ever, is a bad thing.

I have asked this question a number of times and never got an answer.

 

[dmcowen674]

They dont call it a quagmire for nothing. Bush was smart. They got us into some shit that will be very hard to release from...this allows the defense industry to make a killing. pardon the pun

Also made it nearly impossible to close Gitmo.

Reagan and Bush have permanently damaged the United States.

 

[dmcowen674]

The American people were fooled. Again.

We'll be out of Iraq in 16 months. No mandated health insurance. Rein in Wall Street. We'll close Guantanamo. Blah, blah, blah.

You know how to end the war in Iraq overnight? Let's hear it.

Great progress has been made in health insurance in that everyone will pay more, not just the low man on the totem pole, got you elitists too.

Wall street owns the Government so it's just lip service pretending to slap the rich boys on the wrist. Do you bite your own hands?

Obama proposed using a facility in his state of Illinois.

How is it his fault Republicans blocked the move?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You know how to end the war in Iraq overnight? Let's hear it.

That's funny, I don't remember a candidate Bamacre promising a 16 month withdrawal period. I do remember a candidate Obama promising it. Obviously, he (thought he) knew how to end it quickly!

Great progress has been made in health insurance in that everyone will pay more, not just the low man on the totem pole, got you elitists too.

Let me get this straight -- you're HAPPY that your rates will go up? What an idiot. I bet I won't be paying more.

Wall street owns the Government so it's just lip service pretending to slap the rich boys on the wrist. Do you bite your own hands?

Obama proposed using a facility in his state of Illinois.

How is it his fault Republicans blocked the move?

Where are the Democrats during all of this?

 

[nick1985]

Obama lied, people died.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Obama lied, people died.

I'm still waiting for the criminal trials of Bush and his criminal cabal of war profiteers, traitors, murderers, and general incompetents. I've been repeatedly assured this is coming any day now by our resident forum "expert."

 

[NoStateofMind]

The only people who were fooled would have been those who believe a campaign promise is an ironclad guarantee that the politician in question would do exactly what he said, on exactly the timetable he laid out, irrespective of other concerns. When I hear a campaign promise, I think in terms of what the candidate's plans are, what they would LIKE to do if elected.

Newsflash, that's EXACTLY why people vote for you. You make promises and those that sound good enough will grab the majority vote. How can you blame the VOTERS for what is the equivalent of political fraud?

When Obama said he'd close Gitmo, I admired his desire to do something about it and hoped he could get it done. When it turned out that there was incredibly viscous opposition in Congress and real security issues brought up by the military and intel communities, I didn't feel like I was "fooled" when Obama didn't immediately close Gitmo. Because while he didn't get it done as fast as I would have liked, at least he wants to do it and probably still plans to...which gets him points with me considering the guy he ran against didn't even go that far.

That's pretty much my objection to this kind of political point scoring. Based on threads like this, politicians are better off having no plans and promising nothing.

Well let's just not hold ANYONE accountable then.

 

[IamDavid]

I personally love this. Just goes to show how smart and forward thinking Cheney/Rumsfeld were. Wish they'd be on the next ticket...

 

[nick1985]

We need to round up Obama and his criminal cabal and put them on trial! HE LIED, THOUSANDS DIED.

/insert angry emoticons

 

[irishScott]

Scarecrow: I said my compound would take you places. I never said they'd be places you wanted to go.

/The Dark Knight

 

[EagleKeeper]

You can be sure that every campaing promise that Obama has made and failed to follow through on will be trottted out in the 2010 and 2012 election cycle in big bold text.

If he was not a US governemnt offical while campaigning; such naivity could be excusable. However, as a US Senator, he knew what was accopmlishable and what was possbile and what was smoke & mirrors.

He chose to push the latter two during the campaign and now will have to answer for them.

 

[dmcowen674]

You can be sure that every campaing promise that Obama has made and failed to follow through on will be trottted out in the 2010 and 2012 election cycle in big bold text.

If he was not a US governemnt offical while campaigning; such naivity could be excusable. However, as a US Senator, he knew what was accopmlishable and what was possbile and what was smoke & mirrors.

He chose to push the latter two during the campaign and now will have to answer for them.

Your heroes Palin and McCain lost, get over it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Your heroes Palin and McCain lost, get over it.

Except not only is Common Courtesy simply correct, he nailed it -- 100% spot on. Obama was a freaking US Senator and had access to all sorts of reports and data showing what was reasonably achievable in a given timeframe.

Folks, Obama wasn't running for student council president here -- he was running for President of the United States and presumably, had entire teams of top-notch advisors helping him formulate his policies.

 

[cubeless]

Except not only is Common Courtesy simply correct, he nailed it -- 100% spot on. Obama was a freaking US Senator and had access to all sorts of reports and data showing what was reasonably achievable in a given timeframe.

Folks, Obama wasn't running for student council president here -- he was running for President of the United States and presumably, had entire teams of top-notch advisors helping him formulate his policies.

yeah, top notch advisors who told him "hey, they believed the shit we told them in the house and senate races that was never gonna happen and they elected dems, let's stay with a winning program..."...

and he spent so little time actually doing anything in the senate that it's totally forgivable that he knew nothing about how things really work up there...

 

[MotF Bane]

Your heroes Palin and McCain lost, get over it.

So you're fine with electing another lying politician, you're content with the status quo. Well, that fits for somebody voting for Bush.

 

[Balt]

I personally love this. Just goes to show how smart and forward thinking Cheney/Rumsfeld were. Wish they'd be on the next ticket...

... what?

Rumsfeld's strategy in Iraq was an effin' disaster. Even many people on the right acknowledge this. Time and time again he was told that more troops were needed if Iraq was to be made more secure. Time and time again he ignored that advice.

As for Cheney, I've never seen anyone be so confident and so wrong at the same time. "We'll be greeted as liberators."