A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Among my earliest life memories are the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and seeing footage of the Berlin Wall falling later that autumn. I was too young to remember George H. W. Bush's 1988 convention vow that he wouldn't raise taxes, but I do remember in 1992 when Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, and others forced Bush to eat crow over his broken promise. Then Bush lost, and his defeat was attributed to his reneging on his tax pledge as though he were the first and only politician to ever fail to deliver on a campaign promise.
Those must have been simpler times or something because Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo, not raise taxes on middle class families, cut the deficit in half, televise the health care debates, increase the transparency of his administration, allow consumers to keep their insurance plans if they liked them, reduce insurance premiums, not allow the unemployment rate to top 8 percent if his stimulus was passed, not hire lobbyists, create 2.5 million shovel ready jobs, not ship stimulus jobs overseas, and so on and so forth.
And yet the man still has a better than decent chance at winning in November. What gives? Do Americans simply have lower expectations of their presidents than they did two decades ago? Or is it only Republicans that are held to their campaign promises?
Forgive me as I hide behind my youth to ask what may well be an embarrassingly naïve question.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Also because many of the so-called independents are hardly independent at all. I have one acquaintance in mind as I write these words- an exec at GM who voted for BHO in 2008 and will again in 2012.
Why bite the hand that feeds you?
Sep '12
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
mezzrow
And what would it cost to manipulate Intrade? Serious question. · 6 minutes ago
There are about 550,000 shares of Obama out there for about $6.50 a share right now.
There are about 600,000 shares of Romney at about $3.50 a share.
The maximum price per share is $10.
To manipulate this thing to the fullest, you'd probably have to buy all the shares, which might cost between $5-10 million dollars. And then you'd have to keep making transactions with yourself to keep up the volume.
I guess it's doable at some level, but I don't think it would ever be worth it.
Sep '12
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
I read in Bloomberg months ago that Bush 41 was the very first politician to break the Taxpayer Protection Pledge drafted by Grover Norquist. I believe the same article also claimed that no politician breaking the pledge has every been reelected.
Sep '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Believe it or not, there are decent, smart people out there who have a really hard time making political decisions. They lead real lives and don't understand how to evaluate politicians who seem so divorced from reality.
I don't really understand these people, but I live with one. · 35 minutes ago
We feel your pain.
Sep '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
CoveredUp
mezzrow
And what would it cost to manipulate Intrade? Serious question. · 6 minutes ago
There are about 550,000 shares of Obama out there for about $6.50 a share right now.
There are about 600,000 shares of Romney at about $3.50 a share.
The maximum price per share is $10.
To manipulate this thing to the fullest, you'd probably have to buy all the shares, which might cost between $5-10 million dollars. And then you'd have to keep making transactions with yourself to keep up the volume.
I guess it's doable at some level, but I don't think it would ever be worth it. · 10 minutes ago
And we all know George Soros would never do something as crass as manipulate a financial market for his own selfish gain.
Dec '11
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
The problem was Bush doubled down not with "I will not raise taxes." but "Read my lips. No new taxes." It was the core of his campaign strategy. He left himself no wiggle room. The irony is he was replaced with "It depends on the meaning of 'is'. " Clinton.
Apr '12
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
I've concluded that the Big Lie is alive and well, that Democrats and that Leftists of all stripes are deeply committed to it.
The Big Lie begins with the belief of the fundamental inhumanity of conservatives and the necessary defense of humanity, and the planet itself, by The Good. Only these good people are qualified to solve any social problems. By inference, the good can do no wrong. Any lying, mayhem, or death is excusable for greater Goodness.
The Big Lie continues to automatically ennoble entire classes of real or imagined historical victims who are allowed to overstep any traditional social boundary as their right or at least as fair compensation. These victim classes cannot include whites, or males unless they are homosexuals. Importantly, any victim class member surrenders their inherent rights if they are not The Good (as described above).
The final aspect of the Big Lie is the deep abiding belief that all positive evolutionary forces have lead to the development of The Good. They are not just good, they are better people in virtually every meaningful way. Only the brutish and ignorant conservative are standing it the way of their rightful ascension to uncontested global mastery.
Apr '12
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
My husband and I keep asking this same question, Diane. I was also fairly young (though a little older than you) but I remember the "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" smear commercials that aired in that election, and I remember thinking that it seemed pretty damning.
Why can't the Romney campaign get some good commercials out of this? For example, I want to see a montage of the million times Obama has promised to "pivot to jobs", perhaps with the date and unemployment rate at the bottom of each. End with a picture of Obama and a caption like, "This man needs a new job."
May '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Democrats don't buy into the promises of their own candidates. They know that they are all BS because if they ran on their real convictions none of them would get elected! So they hear promises about deficit reduction (for example) and all they see is the wink and the nod.
Dec '11
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
I do remember the 1992 campaign; and the big problem with Bush was that people voted for him in 1988 expecting Ronald Reagan Term Three. We didn't get that. When Bush raised taxes, he broken his spoken pledge of "no new taxes." More importantly, he broke the unspoken pledge to continue what Reagan had started.
Jun '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
I didn't think you had any kids yet. Oh, wait...
The Dems are pretty much pie-in-the-sky. And if the rich would just pay their fair share it could all be Free Pie. A Pew survey said 58% say the rich don't pay enough taxes. That looks like that's well past that "undecided" percentage, and even past the margin of error. Three full school generations have been brought up on fairness and equality, but with the new progressive political definitions thereof. Seeing that great toothy smile makes them feel all gooey-good about it, too.
Most of the rest of how I see it was put well by Essgee at #10.
Sep '12
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
The simplest explanation is often the most correct one. In all honesty I don't think anyone ever expected Obama to actually follow through on his promises outside of a few far left kooks like Cindy Sheehan. C'mon, was anyone surprised when Obama announced his "evolution" in support of gay marriage?
Sep '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
I was driving across the country to work at Oregon Health Science Center in Portland and then to Univ. of California at Davis in October 1989. It was a time of the rise of steroids in baseball and the death of Lee Atwater in 1991.
Republicans didn't know how to fight back against bullies, cheaters and liars after Atwater died. Things would be very different if Lee Atwater were still alive. Chances are that in 2012 none of us would even remember Bill Clinton's failed candidacy in 1992 and Barry Obama would be a beat lawyer for the ACLU in some backwater 'burg.
Amazing that the loss of one man with a spine has hurt the right so much.
Sep '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Believe it or not, there are decent, smart people out there who have a really hard time making political decisions. They lead real lives and don't understand how to evaluate politicians who seem so divorced from reality.
I don't really understand these people, but I live with one. · 4 hours ago
there are many decent people like this, but i think the issue is that they should decline to vote, leaving it to people who actually understand and care enough to decide who and what party to vote for well before the last minute.
Nov '11
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Think about all prior presidents. Barack Obama came to the fore with absolutely no qualifications for the position. Two weeks before the election of 2008, Tom Brokaw admitted to Charlie Rose that "we really don't know who Barack Obama is". There's only one reason that he was elected. The good people of the US saw an opportunity to finally put the nation's racial sins behind it. It's why he'd be reelected, because we can't turn the first black president out of office.
A couple of ironies: Obama had absolutely no connection to the African American heritage or experience. It actually is just a matter of the color of his skin. Also, the cosmic irony is that by electing, and reelecting Obama, the US will have destroyed its own exceptionalism. Talk about Divine Retribution!
Sadly, it was just a little too early in Allen West's or Tim Scott's political career or a little too late in Herman Cain's career.
Nov '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Working at your standard left-wing University (in the UK)--and chatting to liberal colleagues about Obama--or raising points by way of gently ironic questions on Facebook (with US colleagues)--I make no headway pointing out straightforwardly damning facts about him that have serious implications. It's water off a duck's back.
What you have here, in many cases, is a devotional movement to a charismatic figure, with righteous denunciation of his evil opponent. Opinions are not based on facts, nor on material self-interest.
I don't think Paul Rahe is right about a Romney landslide. Not enough people, I predict, will vote based on the candidates' underlying competence; instead, they will vote based on their superficial likeability. Obama is cool and charismatic. Romney is anything but. That will be the crux of the election.
However, Romney and Ryan are unlikely to save America from financial collapse anyhow. Conservatives pin their own aspirations for hope and change to this mast. But Ryan's plan, for all its alleged extremity, is too modest and unrealistic to work; and Romney will inevitably seek coventional managerial solutions.
The self-destructive behemoth will lumber towards the cliff edge, albeit more slowly.
Edited on September 14, 2012 at 10:24amDec '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
CoveredUp
mezzrow
And what would it cost to manipulate Intrade? Serious question. · 6 minutes ago
There are about 550,000 shares of Obama out there for about $6.50 a share right now.
There are about 600,000 shares of Romney at about $3.50 a share.
The maximum price per share is $10.
To manipulate this thing to the fullest, you'd probably have to buy all the shares, which might cost between $5-10 million dollars. And then you'd have to keep making transactions with yourself to keep up the volume.
I guess it's doable at some level, but I don't think it would ever be worth it. · 5 hours ago
The whole market wouldn't have to be purchased. In fact, a more or less constant trade volume would be easier to maintain if you didn't. Let's say you purchase about a quarter of the market, but concentrate on only one side. Your buying pressure would cause the stock you pick to rise. Strategic buys could continue to make that stock dominant.
And it would all cost much less than the president paid to keep his transcripts secret.
Edited on September 14, 2012 at 10:38amAug '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
Diane Ellis, Ed.
I admire your optimism. And some days I share it. But folks on Intrade seem to think Obama's got this one in the bag. · 7 hours ago
I am thinking it may be time to go over to Intrade and short some Obama stock.
Feb '11
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
I think the answer is fairly simple.
Republicans vastly underestimate the damage Bush 41 did to the party by breaking his tax pledge, and understand the damage Bush 43 did to the party not at all.
I've had people say to me (paraphrasing roughly) Obama is an idiot but at least he isn't Bush.
Neither Republican president is remembered fondly by vast swaths of the electorate, and it isn't just because the media says mean things about them.
They were political failures. In my view the public has little enthusiasm for handing the government back over to their party, even if the present occupant is also a failure.
Sep '10
Re: A Question from Someone Whose Earliest Memory Is from 1989
First, why not just name this post "Attention Old People" or "I Need Help From The Rico-decay"?
I think EJ nailed it. Democrats are just voting for their team, not matter what, while Republicans (or at least conservatives) are more likely to vote on principle. Also, after being Reagan's VP, we thought Bush would have bought into Reagan's philosophy but instead he proved to be the same guy who talked about "voodoo economics" in 1980.