In my latest post reminding readers that while as presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised he’d hold on the line on federal spending, yet delivered instead a flood of red ink as president, I noted that I may well have “belabor[ed] this point overmuch.” But, it is a point which bears repetition.
Yes, one of our critics, returning to our blog after long hiatus, started off the comment thread by sniffing,
I can’t believe you’re still flogging this nonsense. I don’t visit the site for a few months, and here you are, repeating the exact same, ridiculous B.S. that you were the last time I was here. . . .
Months ago, you offered your little internet hypothesis about people being mad at Obama for violating what you perceived to be a central promise of his campaign (it wasn’t) and now, when his polling has hit new lows for a completely unrelated reason that you refuse to acknowledge, you’re claiming vindication.
You’re wrong. No one cares about what Obama said in some debate ages ago about his net spending cut.
So, is he telling us that words don’t matter, that a candidate’s campaign rhetoric is irrelevant to his Administration? Before mouthing off on people don’t care what a candidate says in a debate which 56.5 million Americans watched (roughly 46% of the turnout in the presidential contest), he might ask voters in 1992 what they thought of George H.W. Bush’s decision to break his “no new taxes” pledge (Here’s a clue: in 1992, he won nearly 10 million fewer voters than he had in 1988).
Since our critic thinks this line was so insignificant, let’s, as they say, review the transcript (adding emphasis to make my point):
But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.
Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. . . . .
What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.
So, in front of second largest audience he’d get during the campaign, the Democrat said he’d promoted a spending cut “throughout this campaign.” Those three words tell us that this spending cut was not incidental to his campaign, but a defining aspect of it. You don’t repeat something throughout a campaign if it’s not central to your platform.
Then, Obama went out to make a promise he’d repeat in his half-hour pre-election informercial: “Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.”
So, yes, I do repeat this notion because, well, Obama repeated it on the campaign trail. It helped him get elected. And let’s not forget, Obama himself said, “Don’t tell me that words don’t matter.”
And for the record:
– Second presidential debate – Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
– Third presidential debate – Wednesday, October 15, 2008.
The financial crisis had kicked in, and it was already clear to millions of Americans that government restraint had to be a big part of the answer, not bailouts and $1.8 trillion deficits and Porkulus packages. McCain was pulling ahead until he started supporting the bailouts. By BDB’s account, Obama said what he said in the second debate. He didn’t say, “Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches, *except that we really must greatly increase spending as a response to the current economy and financial crisis*.” Not in the second debate. Not in the third. If he had, only lefties would have voted for him.
When Levi, et al, aren’t criticizing conservatives for NOT listening to liberal leaders, they’re criticizing conservatives FOR listening to liberal leaders. Sign me – confused.
As far as Obama’s central promise… I’ll be darned if I could tell you what it was. But I don’t think it involved adding $2,000,000,000,000 in additional debt on top of the trillions already forecast.
(For scale – the distance to the moon is about 15,000,000,000,000 inches.)
As per ILC’s comment, 63.2 million people tuned in for the second presidential debate, more than half the number who voted for president last fall.
“Words, just words?” It would certainly seem so. The problem for democrat’s is that this intellectual dishonesty is rampant. As I have heard somewhere before, “All of the President’s promises come with an expiration date.
Yeah, no one cares what he said about a net spending cut – just that portion of those who voted for him thinking he might actually live up to his word.
Oh, and those of us on the other side who didn’t vote for him, those he “promised” to be our President, too, even though we didn’t vote for him.
But no one cares.
Let’s be clear: President Obama is a liar. No more, no less.
For scale, here’s what $1 Trillion looks like:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Now double that.
Dan, it’s words combined with the context that matters. In this case, it appears that not only did Obama say that there was going to be a net spending cut, that was the message he was trying to convey. It’s possible, but highly doubtful, that Obama meant what he said at the time. However, one thing I do agree with Levi is that I don’t believe Obama’s false campaign promise had any effect with the poll numbers. In other words, if Obama had made no such promise, the poll numbers, including the recent declines would be pretty much the same as it is now.
Whether or not this is true does not excuse any of Obama’s broken campaign promises.
Patrick J. Sime
His campaign promises don’t matter? Tell that to everyone who voted for Hillary, only to see him beat her, then go back on every promise he made that gave him the victory over her. He’s gone back on almost every promise that gave him the victory over McCain as well. The only thing that separates him from Bush policy wise is his push to reform health care.
Oh and apologizing to the world for being big bully Americans, that is differnet too, he insults Americans but apologizes to others. While Bush did kind of the opposite 🙂
Funny France is a huge bully esp. in Africa, I don’t see them apologizing.
His campaign promises don’t matter?
Plutosdad, campaign promises do matter to me (although I realize that candidates all too often renege), and I’m sure that they matter somewhat to voters in general. I think that more of a case could be made that the campaign promise in question made a difference in the primaries and the general election. However, I still think it would have made little difference. Perhaps the margins of victory would have been smaller.
I agree Pat. McCain just sucks in general.
Though I’ve noticed a dearth of trolls on the threads today. Did they have a sale on lithium.
I think the trolls are getting their new orders from the White House, Politico, Huffington Post and wherever else they normally hang out.
Just wait, the surge is about to begin as they have their new order to push you into accepting the abomination known as the healthcare package that the majority of Americans do not want…..
I’m glad you did a post on this because it’s important that conservatives be just as educated about what makes them different from liberals as the specific issues themselves. However, it’s been abundantly clear since the Clinton years (at least) that to liberals, lying is perfectly acceptable if it is done to advance the liberal agenda or the political career of a liberal because things like character, honesty, and integrity are measured only with regard to one’s “stand on the issues.”
And liberals are well aware of this, whether they admit it or not. I’m reminded of a thread on this blog a couple of months ago which pointed out Obama’s promise to repeal DOMA and his Solicitor General, defending a challenge to the law before the US Supreme Court, argued the same points for upholding the law that the Gay Left purportedly finds so repugnant (i.e. incest, etc.). Obama had responded to the criticism by again stating that he would repeal the law and one of the little-letter trolls (bob, I think) commented that he had no reason to doubt Obama’s statement that he would ultimately repeal DOMA BECAUSE HE DIDN’T HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP. Translation: of course Obama lied to get elected, but now that the election is over, he has no reason to lie so everything he says must be true. PATHETIC.