I knew that Jan Brewer was a B***H,

[Shankapotomus]

53. To me, this is the deal with presidents who

"break" promises or things they campaigned on:

If you want to make changes that you truly beleive in, you have to hold onto power. But if you have another party against you that's postulating the opposite solutions, with a whole bunch of voters backing them up, you have to appear to compromise to defeat your opponent. You have to constantly pivot back and forth between your true professed beliefs and the beliefs that will take some of your opponents votes away from them. Admittedly, it's a game but it's a necessary and important game that your own constituents don't always realize you are playing. And so they end up getting angry at you because they don't realize you're just trying to keep power in the hands of democrats to slowly institute the changes most democrats beleive in. So very often it may appear Obama is selling but that is only because he have a conservative movement and their voters to deal with. You don't go all in on everything you want all at once and risk angering a huge swath of voters or perhaps failing at at change monumentally. You take it slow.

Think of it this way: what would happen if we kept voting democrat no matter what? If you dry out the republican power well, you eliminate your opponent. If you eliminate your opponent, you don't have to contend with them or their voters. You can finally institute the changes you really beleive in without political repercussions.