OBAMA AND HIS BROKEN PROMISE.

christiefan915 said:
If it's an "Obama fan site" poser then why should we give the original post any credence either? IMO if one is going to stand by the "broken promise" category as factual, then one has to do the same for the others also.

Btw, any site that takes the time to count up all the Obama promises (and we're just taking their word for what they post), and then systematically analyze them for being true or false is not an Obama fan site. These people didn't do it for bush and tried to justify their decision by saying they didn't have the resources. Make of that what you will.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2009/jan/25/why-we-havent-checked-bushs-promises/
Click to expand...
The analysis comes from the details, which I do give them credit for including.

I do not "just accept" the claim that Obama broke his promise for open, transparent, easily accessed proceedings in the creation of a health care reform package. But the details support the claim.

Nor did I just accept the claim that Obama has kept 55 promises, so I also read the details in that section. What I found was what I critiqued. Several of the "promises kept" details had so twisted and distorted the actual facts in order to arrive at the "promise kept" category it became obvious that for all their good intentions, the bias of the analysis team is readily apparent. Add to that the inclusion of "promises" which are totally irrelevant, and counting several "promise kept" items which even they admit resulted from the policies of previous administrations with zero action taken one way or the other on Obama's part, and you have a bunch of biased posers. Maybe they are well intended biased posers, But the bias is VERY apparent.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I fail to see your correlation. In fact, I think it's willful ignorance on your part to intentionally disregard the whole issue of political campaign promises designed to garner votes.
Click to expand...

You're smarter than that.

If one broken promise means nothing else the man says or does can be trusted, then your premise is as true for bush, Clinton, GHWB, etc. all the way back to the founders.

I admit that campaign promises are broken as casually as they're made and don't like it any more than you do. But if that's the standard for judging a president's trustworthiness, you set the bar so high nobody could reach it, and that includes the candidates you've supported. So why not admit that your statement applied to bush, reagan et al as much as it does to Obama, Clinton et al?
 
the Obama hasn't broken any promises because he never intended to keep many..the only promise he is willing to keep is the hostile takeover of our health care system and if we don't buy into it we will be FINED OR JAILED, a tax on us breathing the air with the tax and cap scam, and to see us in his radical Socialist vision
where you steal from ones who work to give to the one who won't or don't..
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
So, the proper response is to just accept the claims "55 promises kept" of the site without any critical thinking? We're supposed to go "Ooooo! 55 promises kept! He's the Best President EVER!!" I didn't say ignore the information, I just suggest being aware of the very obvious pro-Obama bias.

I gave up being a mindless dronebot of the partisan party system years ago. To my shame I didn't do it a lot earlier.

There are spots of truth in the list of promises kept. And there is a BUNCH of spun honey. Their analysis of broken promises is, for some unexplained reason, quite a bit more accurate to reality. There is good information available in there, as long as one realizes it is, in no way, unbiased. Read the details, not just the glowing partisanly inspired list of numbers. Since it is quite literally impossible to find unbiased sources detailing political activities, sifting the details and recognizing the direction of bias is essential.
Click to expand...
M
The source wasn't selected by me, nor do I pick and choose the accuracy or bias of the source's points, as do you, based purely on a biased point of view. How do you go about explaining the difference between broken promises and a failed attempt to keep a campaign pledge though the original intent is intact. Can you name a President/politician that survives that test? I don't kow if you favor a particular party, but it is my understanding Presidents don't make laws, but merely suggest, support and sign them. Much of what you listed as failures are a result of an intransigent GOP Congress and most of the listed 7 failures most RWers would never support and thus they try to have it both ways in criticising the President. If he doesn't get a health bill, all the world knows he failed to achieve it, however, the world also knows his intent to pass a bill never dwindled. And the RW naysayers will be quite happy of that failure while accusing him of breaking a promise, which he did not.
Happy Thanksgiving!
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
You're smarter than that.

If one broken promise means nothing else the man says or does can be trusted, then your premise is as true for bush, Clinton, GHWB, etc. all the way back to the founders.
Click to expand...
and I believe I said that there hasn't been a president in my lifetime that i could trust because of that.

christiefan915 said:
I admit that campaign promises are broken as casually as they're made and don't like it any more than you do. But if that's the standard for judging a president's trustworthiness, you set the bar so high nobody could reach it, and that includes the candidates you've supported. So why not admit that your statement applied to bush, reagan et al as much as it does to Obama, Clinton et al?
Click to expand...

the few candidates i've fully supported have so disappointed me, that generally at election time, I write my own name in.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Just one of his many. :(

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 517:


Bookmark this:

Buzz up!
ShareThis



Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

Sources: Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va.
Subjects: Health Care, Transparency

Updates:
Obama said he'd televise health reform negotiations on C-SPAN

Updated: Friday, July 10th, 2009 * By Angie Drobnic Holan
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said several times that he intended to negotiate health care reform publicly. In fact, he said, he'd televise the negotiations on C-SPAN, with all the parties sitting at a big table. That way, Americans would be more engaged in the process and insist on real change.

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process," Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

The special interests and lobbyists, he said, "will resist anything that we try to do. ... And the antidote to that is making sure that the American people understand what is at stake."

We missed this promise when we first made our database, but thanks to thorough reporting on it from the McClatchy News Service , we're adding it now. (Read their story .)

The McClatchy report showed that, so far, substantial negotiations on health reform have been held behind closed doors. These include two agreements with the drug industry and hospitals to reduce costs over the next 10 years. In Congress, some of the committee bill writing sessions have been open, but negotiations are also taking place behind closed doors. That's routine in Congress. Much of the difficult negotiations take place in private sessions, before bills come to committee or the House or Senate floor.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told the McClatchy reporters that Obama "has demonstrated more transparency than any president," but that "I don't think the president intimated that every decision putting together a health care bill would be on public TV."

Maybe not every decision, but he made it clear that he wanted negotiations, especially with those representing the for-profit health care industry, to take place in the open. We were able to find four additional instances where he made the same promise during public appearances in 2007 and 2008. And in one case, he said he'd do it in his first 100 days.

"People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93,'" Obama said on Aug. 21, 2008, at a town hall in Chester, Va. "And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
\Part of the issue here is that Obama has announced broad outlines for a health care bill — primarily lower costs and expanded access — but he has left the details of legislation to Congress. That gives Congress a lot of the power to control the debate, as then-candidate Hillary Clinton warned Obama during the Los Angeles debate. "Certainly, it is important that the president come up with the plan, but we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN. Now, I think we might be able to do that, but that's a little heavier lift than what the president is going to propose," she said at the time.

So no, there haven't been any round-table negotiations on C-SPAN. And there are plenty of questions still to be answered. To our mind, one of the most important questions will be the details behind what's known as the public option, which Obama has said he supports. It could be like Medicare for everyone, or it could be just another nonprofit health insurance plan, or anywhere in between. The details here matter a great deal, but we don't know which type of public option is likely to emerge from Congress or what specific stipulations Obama might have for the public option.

Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.
Sources:

McClatchy Newspapers, Obama campaign vow of public debate on health care fading , July 9, 2009

New York Times, Health deals could harbor hidden costs , July 7, 2009

CNN.com, Democratic presidential debate , Jan. 31, 2008

CQ Transcriptions, Town hall with Barack Obama in Lancaster, Va., Aug. 21, 2008, accessed via Nexis

Federal News Service, Town hall with Barack Obama in Albuquerque, N.M., Aug. 18, 2008, accessed via Nexis

CQ Transcriptions, Town hall with Barack Obama in Lancaster, Pa., March 31, 2008, accessed via Nexis

CQ Transcriptions, Town hall with Barack Obama and Google employees in Mountain View, Calif., Nov. 14, 2007, accessed via Nexis

We want to hear your suggestions and comments. For tips or comments on our campaign promise database, please e-mail the Obameter. If you are commenting on a specific promise, please include the promise number. For comments about our Truth-O-Meter or Flip-O-Meter items, please e-mail the Truth-O-Meter. We’re especially interested in seeing any chain e-mails you receive that you would like us to check out.

About PolitiFact.com
PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter. We’re also tracking more than 500 of Barack Obama’s campaign promises and are rating their progress on our new Obameter. >> More
http://tampabay.com/universal/politifact/images/logoset_aboutbox.gif[/IMG[/SIZE][/quote]

Why don't you post your source's list of 'pants on fire" lies" It looks like almost all come from RW hacks. It's no surprise.

A sincere Happy Thanksgiving.​
Click to expand...
 
belme1201 said:
Why don't you post your source's list of 'pants on fire" lies" It looks like almost all come from RW hacks. It's no surprise.

A sincere Happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
If by this you mean they only rate lies from the right, I agree. From the way it is displayed, you'd think the left never lied a "pants on fire" type lie. People either know that the left has their share of lies, or have their heads firmly up the donkeys ass.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
This is a source your buddy Ethel uses quite often, so stop being a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

The first time I ever went there was after your original post. I presume, since you chose them as your source, that you consider them reliable. I thought that, as a result, you might enjoy their "pants on fire" section.
I'm sorry you didn't notice so, once again, Happy Thanksgiving.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
If by this you mean they only rate lies from the right, I agree. From the way it is displayed, you'd think the left never lied a "pants on fire" type lie. People either know that the left has their share of lies, or have their heads firmly up the donkeys ass.
Click to expand...

Which is the reason that, were it I, unless I knew it was a balanced source, I wouldn't use it to base a premise for a thread, unlike what is seen here more frequently than not. Thus you have come to my point, not on the findings by the source, but the twisting of facts when the math doesn't fit the conclusion.
Once again, Happy Thanksgiving.
 
belme1201 said:
The first time I ever went there was after your original post. I presume, since you chose them as your source, that you consider them reliable. I thought that, as a result, you might enjoy their "pants on fire" section.
I'm sorry you didn't notice so, once again, Happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

I had a very good Thanksgiving visiting our troops in the base hospital. That's the least I could do. I hope you also had a happy Thanksgiving.
 
belme1201 said:
Which is the reason that, were it I, unless I knew it was a balanced source, I wouldn't use it to base a premise for a thread, unlike what is seen here more frequently than not. Thus you have come to my point, not on the findings by the source, but the twisting of facts when the math doesn't fit the conclusion.
Once again, Happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
Well, in a way we were coming to the same point - with the exception that, as far as I can find, there is no such thing as an unbiased source available - just some whose bias is easier to ignore while gleaning their information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top