Speaking of promises…

March 26th, 2010

Obama in Iowa: ‘Three Years Ago, cialis sovaldi sale We Made a Promise. That Promise Has Been Kept.’

Well, I guess that proves he’s at least capable of keeping a promise. You wouldn’t know it from this:

Then there is Obama’s chronic dissimulation. Most Americans were indifferent rather than outraged when Obama became the first presidential candidate to renounce public campaign financing in the general election — despite both earlier promises that he would not, and later crocodile tears over the Supreme Court’s rollback of some public-financing rules.

Perhaps most Americans also were only mildly irked that Obama demagogued the Bush anti-terror protocols during the campaign, only to continue unchanged precisely those practices that he had most fiercely railed against — tribunals, renditions, Predators, the continuing presence in Iraq.

And perhaps most Americans did not believe Obama when he promised to close Guantanamo within a year and to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York — and they were right. These too were isolated Obama untruths.

Then some of us were troubled that Obama had once decried passage of health-care reform by mere 51 percent majorities — only to do precisely that last weekend. Candidate Obama likewise damned the use of executive orders to countermand legislative action — and then did just that on matters of abortion and Obamacare. Chalk it up to the Chicago style of the ends justifying any means necessary.

So was anyone surprised that the health-care bill did not sit on the president’s desk for five days before the signing, as he once bragged would be the new administration’s policy, for reasons of transparency? And wasn’t that reminiscent of his continued, but reneged on, pledges to air all the health-care debates on C-SPAN?

I could go on and on, but again the pattern is clear. Each time Obama prevaricates, we grant him an exemption because of his lofty rhetoric about bipartisanship and his soothing words about unity. Only later do we notice that in retrospect each untruth is part of a pattern of dissimulation within just a single year of governance. Obama has proven so far that in fact one can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

Discovered at Boots & Sabers

Entry Filed under: Observations

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  March 26th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Yet another piece of pontification by the fabulous writers at Boots and Sabers.

    If we really want to dig deep and overly analyze the promises kept ratio of Obama, there already exists a site on the web for the sole purpose of doing that. And he’s not doing too bad of a job, actually.


  • 2. Elliot  |  March 26th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    It’s actually from the National Review.

    And how many promises can someone break before it becomes a problem?

    Just for future reference.

  • 3. Debunked  |  March 26th, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    I think you and I both know that 17 promises broken, 101 promises kept (which has gone up by two since I first linked the site) is a hell of a track record for a politician, let alone the President.

    Both sides make the same rhetoric and promises that get broken. It doesn’t matter who is President. When you’re the leader of an entire nation, you’re going to have made and broken promises, no matter who you are. And anybody who claims otherwise is lying.

    He’s not a dictator, as much as the right wing tries to paint him as such. He doesn’t have ultimate control over doing everything he said he would do and some things he said he would do aren’t viable.

  • 4. TerryN  |  March 26th, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Of course he’s not a dictator. His office does not yet have that power. Victor Davis Hanson does a remarkable job of chronicling BHO’s lies. Politifact does a remarkable job of making excuses.

    To anyone with a brain it’s not the promise/lie count it’s the value of what is said and what is done.

    If I was dumb enough to to fall for The One, I’d be ruing the day I cast my vote.

  • 5. Debunked  |  March 26th, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Yet another amusing comment. Obama’s office “does not yet have [dictatorship] power.”

    I mean, Obama has definitely been expanding the power of the executive branch as much as Bush. It’s just so obvious.

    What is really sad isn’t those “dumb enough to fall for The One.” It’s those dumb enough to really believe that a moderate viewpoint is liberal and only extreme right-wing is neutral.

    Actually, scratch that. That’s not dumb. It’s downright terrifying.

  • 6. Elliot  |  March 27th, 2010 at 12:06 am

    Obama may not be expanding the power of the executive branch by much, but he certainly ain’t givin’ any of it back.

  • 7. John Foust  |  March 27th, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Show me the plan to reduce the power of the Executive. Show me the precedences. Show me how the political system would need to change to make that happen.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.