Isn't it routine for presidents not to follow all their promises or to sell out?

[alp227]

With all the complaints all over DU about how Obama has shifted to the right and panders to corporations and stuff like that I thought about it and realize that selling out or breaking promises is something that presidents have routinely done throughout history.

Like:
- Gerald Ford (Republican): Pardoned Richard Nixon (something that wouldn't sit well with liberals) and granted conditional amnesty for Vietnam War draft dodgers who fled to Canada (really annoyed superpatriotic conservatives). As a Republican, Ford strongly supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which the anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly and her organization Eagle Forum successfully prevented from complete ratification. And he appointed the rather left-wing Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired last year. In the 1976 Republican convention, Ford was criticized by future president Ronald Reagan and the more conservative wing of the GOP. The Tea Party wouldn't tolerate Ford, wouldn't they?
- Jimmy Carter (Democrat) deregulated airlines. In his 2005 book Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, Carter recalled:

Soon after arriving in Washington, I was surprised and disappointed when no Democratic member of Congress would sponsor my first series of legislative proposals--to reorganize parts of the federal bureaucracy--and I had to get Republicans to take the initiative. Thereafter, my shifting coalitions of support comprised the available members of both parties who agreed with me on specific issues, with my most intense and mounting opposition coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. (One reason for this was the ambition of Senator Ted Kennedy to replace me as president.)

- Ronald Reagan (Republican): Contrary to right-wing hagiography, didn't really shrink government. According to the American Experience PBS documentary about Reagan, some conservatives criticized him for engaging in diplomacy with Gorbachev. Oh, not to mention that he granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants (and we all know how the Tea Party feels about those darned illegals) The Reagan presidency before 1987 had divided government sorta like how it is now except back then Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the House (during '87 and '88 the Dems had both). So the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which decreased personal income taxes yet increased corporate taxes, was possible only through bipartisanship/compromise.
- George H.W. Bush (Republican): During his speech at the 1988 Republican convention, he stated: "Read my lips: no new taxes," only to concede with House Democrats to raise taxes two years later to combat a budget deficit. Recently, House Republicans voted to cut off funding from the EPA. Bush's approval rating soared to near 90% during the 1991 Gulf War, but after the war ended his broken promise on taxes, a recession, and a fellow Texan named Ross Perot blocked Bush from seeking a second term.
- Bill Clinton (Democrat): Well-known for advancing centrist "New Democrat" policy such as NAFTA, welfare reform, and deregulation of Wall Street and telecommunications, as he had to face a Republican-controlled Congress 1995 and later. Still remained a popular, re-elected president as the economy boomed, and unemployment and poverty were at all-time lows, and the budget was balanced and even went to surplus for the first time in decades. Oh yeah, Clinton couldn't have a reputation as being "soft on crime" after the disastrous Dukakis presidential campaign four years earlier, so he as Arkansas governor in 1992 decided to go ahead with the execution of a mentally retarded man. Looking at some of the legislation that Clinton signed, I doubt that you could call 'em liberal; I'm talking about the Defense of Marriage Act (no federal recognition of same-sex marriage), Don't Ask Don't Tell (repealed by the next Democratic president), Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (cut capital gains taxes), and the Iraq Liberation Act (the prelude to that costly, dishonest, illegal war).
- George W. Bush (Republican): Also a re-elected president like Clinton, some of his legislation also caught the ire of conservatives. The more libertarian/isolationist types (e.g. Ron Paul) disliked Bush's big spending and expansion of wars and warantless wiretapping, and the more law-and-order types resisted Bush's support of comprehensive immigration reform. Some Tea Party supporters have voter's remorse regarding Bush.
- And now Obama, who ran on a "change" platform...yet renewed the Bush tax cuts for 2 years contra his campaign promise to let 'em expire, hasn't closed Guantanamo despite the executive order 2 days into his presidency, won't prosecute Bush officials for illegal torture, and continues to advance that dismal No Child Left Behind legislation (Arne Duncan/charter schools/union-busting). On the brighter side, he successfully passed heath care reform but faces challenges in court, repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, extended hate crime protection to LGBT's, and improved school nutrition standards (and Mrs. Obama is a champion of children's health too!)

[Hannah Bell]

1. yes.

[impik]

2. No president got even close to Obama's percentage

Of promise kept. The rest is just silly fringe talk.

[Tesha]

3. Says you.

Frankly, he's still defaulting on some of his biggest
promises.

And, as usual, you threw in a gratuitous insult.

Tesha

[polichick]

7. +1 - that poster uses insults the way Repukes use character assassination. nt

[MissDeeds]

15. +1 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Tell us why you think Bush and Cheney should not be

investigated? Why do you, personally, think they should live without accountability while the rest of us are accountable for every last thing? You wish them to go free, but you refuse to say why that is. So why?

[Arkana]

24. The sheer wall of anger you have incited just from this one post

tells me you must have hit a nerve somewhere.

[Alexander]

27. James K. Polk

Kept every single campaign promise he made.

[ensemble]

4. well...

I think both Carter and Clinton ran as centerists. Obama is one too, but it was perhaps less clear before he was elected.
I think, in particular, his sell outs to corporate/financial interests from day one - which appears to be his preferred tactic, and not a matter of compromise, anger many on the left.

[rug]

5. Yes. Presidential campaigns have become clever marketing campaigns for bullshit.

[sad sally]

19. You said it - that's exactly what it is.

Four billion dollars was spent on the 2010 elections, an 80% increase over 2008. Where does this money come from and how is it spent? With the loopholes the Federal Election Commission created in the disclosure laws, we know less about the where and how than ever before. So, how can there be any expectation from the voter that what a political candidate promises is anything but bs and lies.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Telling that you start with Ford, who never ran for President

and thus never made any campaign promises at all. Ford had not promised not to pardon Nixon, nor to not grant amnesty to the draft evaders. So he's got no standing at all to be used as a comparison to those who did in fact run for President.
And of course 'read my lips' was the very phrase that cost 41 his second term. So sure, it is common for them to fail to meet their promises, but it is just as common for that to have a high political cost.
But Ford? Campaign promises? That just does not fly. Bad example. Hugely inapplicable. Obviously so, in fact. Yes, a Republican who was not elected, but rather appointed by the most detested President in history did do what the people did not want him to do. Not sure that 'Republican appointee of a crook' is a good standard for any discussion of actual elected Presidents.

[alp227]

11. gack! how did i forget that Ford wasn't elected?

And the Environmental Protection Agency was started by Ford's twice-elected predecessor Nixon...think about that whenever you hear modern Republicans wanting to defund EPA.

My point was, presidents generally can't be molded into what we expect of them based on campaign promises, party archetypes, or glorified views. Compromise and bipartisanship have happened throughout history, and Obama himself called for unity in his 2004 DNC keynote: "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."

[Honeycombe8]

9. I don't call it selling out. It's reality. Watch the movie Primary Challenge...

I think that's the name. With John Travolta playing a Clintonesque candidate. It shows the reality of it all. As the Clintonesque candidate tells his naiive assistant at the end, as the assistant quits because of disillusionment, don't be so naiive....he has to do what is necessary to win. This is what it takes to win. So if you truly think that my ideas are worthwhile, as I do, he says, well, I can't do anything, if I don't win first. I happen to think that I can help a lot of people. But I can only do that if I win.

Having said that...Obama always portrayed himself as somewhat of a centrist. He didn't, for example, push a public option in his health care plan. The plan as passed was close to what he put up on his campaign site, except for the mandatory provision, which was part of Hillary Clinton's plan. He always supported the war in Afghanistan, while stating we needed to get our Iraq responsibly. Etc., etc.

Some people weren't paying careful attention, or are remembering too much what right wingers said about him...that he was a far left liberal. He never was. Even during the campaign he flattered the memory of Reagan.

Obama hasn't changed. Some people are just now noticing he's not far left, though. AND in some instances, like the tax cut bill he signed, he was being a realist and giving up something quickly so that he and the lame duck Congress could move on and pass three other things that wouldn't get passed if they didn't do it, then. That was a chess-like strategic move that some disagree with (I disagreed with it at the time...I was really really super angry). But Obama has always seemed like a realist and goal-oriented person, so that is in line with his character. As it turns out, I can't say his move was wrong.

[alp227]

12. looked it up, it's actually called Primary Colors

Wikipedia article

[Honeycombe8]

16. Yeah, that was it. Good movie. nt

[ReggieVeggie]

10. what good are promises if they're not going to be kept?

If we accept that presidential candidates must lie in order to achieve their office, what's the point of the campaign? Who's the best bullshitter?

[Honeycombe8]

17. Blame the public. We don't vote for candidates who tell it like it is.

If Kucinich got up there and said...well, I believe strongly in the public option. That is the ONLY way to go in America. That is the only fair and just health care system. But the reality is, there's a snowball's chance in hell that I could ever get that done. We live in a democracy, and the fact is, more than half the country and Congress doesn't want that. So wake up and smell the coffee; I'll keep talking about it as the fairest thing, but then I'll set about doing something that really has an effect, like getting a bill passed that at least offers subsidies. But another reality is....there is no chance that I will the nomination, so it doesn't really matter whether I tell the truth or not. So I will continue from here on to campaign on a soapbox and talk dramatically about things that can never be....because I will never have to actually do those things. But my point will be to try to get the left excited enough to show up at the polls, and hopefully everyone thinking in a left direction. That's a noble cause.

That would be an example of what Kucinich really knew to be the truth. But on the campaign trail, that's not what people want to hear. That's not what people vote for.

There was a candidate (a Dem. I think) a few years ago, who campaigned on "truth" and telling it like it is. He said that he would tell the public the truth, unlike the other candidates. And the truth is, I will raise your taxes. The others won't tell you that they'll do that, although they are going to do that. I'm telling you up front that I will have to do that. He lost big time.

You have to get elected first, before you can do ANYTHING. And people don't want to hear the cold, hard facts. Hell, even now, people on this board refuse to see that the public option never had any chance. They continue to fool themselves into thinking that it just wasn't pushed hard enough. The truth is...the public option never had widespread support in Congress, and Blue Dogs simply could not vote for it and expect to get re-elected. That's reality. Another reality is....it's almost impossible to change an entire system from one kind to another in one bill. Almost impossible. Just sit down at your computer and think about devising a plan to convert from one to the other, without anyone missing getting any health care, or care providers missing any payments for services provided.

Blame the public. Not the ones who have to get their votes.

[craigmatic]

13. There's trasformative presidents and transactional presidents. Transactional do what they can and

often break promises to make deals. Transformative presidents are unreasonable and change the country. Guess which one Obama is.

[polichick]

25. Not the one you'd think would say...

"Yes we can" or "Change we can believe in."

[craigmatic]

29. Pretty much.

I really wish he'd end trickle down economics. That's the cause of this mess and that's what turned the new deal on its head.

[MadMaddie]

14. The only way any President could deliver 100% on all that

a campaign promises is the following:

1. Absolute 100% control over the House and Senate. Not merely 51% of the Senate (which we had before 2010).
2. A Dictator with absolute control of all three branches - (I would argue that Junior was closer to this than President Obama)

He is not perfect but if anyone honestly believes that Wisconsin is an anomolie then you are smoking crack. If a Walker like person gets into the Presidency with control of the House and Senate then this country is truely fucked because the Koch Brothers will own this country.

We need to impeach and remove Thomas and Scalia from the Bench. They have violated the trust of the American people over and over again and they are in bed with the Koch brothers.

[alp227]

28. and at least Sarah Palin isn't 2nd in line for the presidency right now

while Obama may not be perfect, having McCain as president=a LOT worse

[BlueIris]

18. It's bad enough that his actions aren't consistent with stated perspectives from the campaign trail.

But to me, it's the offensive nature of his actions, especially WRT Afghanistan and Iraq, that make his activities in the WH unacceptable. Whether or not he's guilty of "broken campaign 'promises'" isn't the issue for me. Ineffectuality is the issue. These "solutions"...aren't.

[ProSense]

20. CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented

January 11, 2010

<...>

The new CQ study gives Obama a higher mark than any other president since it began scoring presidential success rates in Congress more than five decades ago. And that was in a year where Obama tackled how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.

Unprecedented Success Rate

Obama has been no different from his predecessors in that he's always ready to send a firm message to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue as he "urges members of Congress" to come together and act. All presidents demand specific action by Congress — or at least they ask for it. But when you look at the votes of 2009 in which Obama made his preference clear, his success rate was unprecedented, according to John Cranford of Congressional Quarterly.

"His success was 96.7 percent on all the votes where we said he had a clear position in both the House and the Senate. That's an extraordinary number," Cranford says.

The previous high scores were held by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, with 93 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower, who scored 89 percent in 1953. Cranford notes that George W. Bush's score hit the high 80s in 2001, the year of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. But Obama surpassed them all, Cranford says.



more

That's based on his first year. Still, President Obama had a really successful second year, which includes the 2010 lame-duck session.

[craigmatic]

23. If that's true it certainly doesn't feel like it. It still seems like LBJ did more.

[JoePhilly]

21. The expectation that a "promise" from a Presidential candidate "must" be ...

realized IN FULL ... only makes sense if you are a naive voter.

Our government has three CO-EQUAL branches. The President can't DICTATE any specific law, or provision.

And so, when you hear ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE make ANY PROMISE ... what is ALWAYS TRUE, is that for the President to KEEP that promise, IN FULL ... it will take a WILLING CONGRESS.

As an example. Let's say that as a candidate a would be President "promises" Ten things that are related. Then as President, as he pushes for all ten, he gets a bill that only includes 7 or 8 because the Congress as it stands won't do the rest.

If he signs it, the people who want the last 2 or 3 scream bloody murder. If he vetoes it, the people who wanted items 1-7 scream bloody murder.

In politics, getting 60%, 70%, 80% of what you want is a victory, particularly when the US is as divided as it is now.

[Vinca]

22. The difference is that I believed Obama and thought he was different. I was wrong.

[bhikkhu]

26. Nevertheless, we have a president, not a dictator

There's no doubt. for instance, that he would have ended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; as it happened, he had to hammer out a compromise. If congress (who we elected as well) were different, then things would be different.

Which is the same as saying "if the country were different, we would have different representatives and different legislation".

[Vinca]

30. Unfortunately, he puts his cards on the table before anyone else does

and consistently starts from a weakened position which results in legislation so watered down you can't remember the original intent.

[panzerfaust]

31. Certainly has been for the last two: "Uniter, Not Divider" and "Hope You Can Believe In"

to put it as succinctly as I can.