From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Campaign promises != reality
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:19:49 GMT


In the news on the radio and the paper, there is talk on the "honeymoon"
being over even before the inaugeration...

In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#}Oh? Why can't I listen to the public statements of Clinton and the
}#}nominee? 
}#
}#For one, have you checked upon the historic correlation between the
}#public statements of candidates and their subsequent actions?
}
}Yes. And I have found that Clinton expects his subordiantes to do the
}job he tells them to do.

I recommend that you check the current news.  According to numerous reports,
Clinton does not appear to expect his subordinates to do what he claimed
that they (and he) would do, with respect to the economy.  In fact, it does
not appear to be the case that HE will do the job he told him to...

}#Oh, really?   When the President says something, you believe it 100%?
}
}Nope. I rarely beleive anyone 100 percent. 95 percent though in this
}instance. 

I recommend that you reevaluate your percent, given the current "Backoff"
on the part of the Clinton group on their campaign promises (even before
he took office, but after he is elected.  Suprised?).

}#Right.  There is, of course, a 100% correlation between what he has
}#said and what he has done, and what he has not said and what he has
}#not done.  NOT.
}
}There is never a 100 percent correlation between what anyone says and
}what they do. Does that mean you trust nobody about anything?

It would appear, in the current case in the present circumstances, that
believing him (then) would mean not believing him (now).  Which time was/is
he wrong?  One time is wrong.

}#Interesting.  "Rational discourse" does not include observable facts
}#independently verified but does include candidate campaign promises
}#and private wishes.  Odd.
 
}Also, I consider the past behaviour
}of an agency to be of less importance than how the new administration
}wants to deal with the department. 

And I consider observed behaviour to be more important than campaign promises by
politicians attempting to be elected.

As to the "things have changed" argument:

Either they have or they have not.  

If they have not, he is backing away from campaign promises.  Now that he is elected,
why try to pull the wool over the ones who elected him?

If they have, he either knew it would or did not.

If he knew it would change, he either is or was right (or neither)
If neither, he is always an apparent liar.  He is, and was, saying things that
he KNOW are not true.
If he is right now and he knew then, he lied then, apparently for the purpose of
getting elected with the foreknowledge that he could not fulfill his promises.
If he was right then and he knew the true that the circumstances would change,
He is apparently backing down from things that he can do, promised to do, but
doesn't (for whatever reasons) what his supporters to think that he can do.

If he did not know that things would change, he is a bigger fool than I thought.
Things change.  The question becomes "Why didn't he conditionalize his campaign
promises upon anything, rather than making absolute 'I will...' type promises?"

--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc