I’d buy that, Neurotik, but it needs to be in context.
See, ISTM that number is so high for the same reason the Miss Cleo and John Edward charlatans get so many hits. To wit: make your promises vague enough and they’ll come true.
It’s the big issues, the big promises, the specific and definite promises that need to be addressed. Things like “I’ll remove the restrictions on homosexuals serving int he military,” and “Read my lips: no new taxes.”
Evaluating the more-original BS:
Factual errors, yellow card. Foreign aid is part of Congress’s Constitutionally-delegated power to ratify treaties. Law enforcement and social services are necessary to keep the country running smoothly. Highways improve the movement of people, goods, and military (especially for defense or deployment).
Assertion, yellow card. Taxes ought to be related to government size – but that’s not a requirement. Those taxes are going to be assesed on something; you want to go back to a capitation tax? (That’s a rate per person, eg. 3sp / adult, 2sp / child, 1sp / animal.) Plus, how much income tax was collected last year? How are you going to shrink the government THAT far without disrupting society and the economy?
Appeal, yellow card. What happens to people whose retirement accounts collapse? (Think Enron.) What assets are you going to sell? How do you plan to redeem the restricted bonds in the Social Security trust fund without triggering substantial inflation? And another factual error, yellow card: An employee pays half of the Social Security (FICA) tax, and the employer pays the other half.
Effect-cause claim (post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, I think), yellow card. (I think we’re up to two red cards by now.) Prove the connection. Show that the gov’t is snooping everybody’s bank account and emails.
Straw man argument. Red card! If you don’t like gun control, come right out and say so.
Old issue. I have to call a yellow card for form. Judicial interpretation has been an issue since John Jay was Chief Justice… and all the way back to when the sage Hillel started school. “The law is given to Mankind, and not Mankind to the law.” (Adapted from Hillel.) Plus another yellow card for a factual error: The elastic clause has been used to permit gov’t programs not explicitly authorized. Or maybe Mr. Browne would prefer that ARPA hadn’t been allowed to create its experimental computer network, since the Constitution only authorized scientific patents, not funding of research? Or that freedom of speech, press, and assembly only apply in a physical setting and not online?
I’ll grant Lib’s point: The Lib Party has more original BS than the main parties; I don’t expect the main parties to suggest such radical positions. But bull is bull, whether Texan steak or Spanish fighting.
Agh!
It’s not that I don’t love you, Lib. You know I do…
But I meant every single word of that. If the Libertarian Party wants to acheive significant power under the electoral system currently in place the approach I just outlined is the only one that will get them there.
I realize there’s an element of ‘selling out’ to it but isn’t passing part of the libertarian philosophy worth rolling around in the mud? Especially if it’s successful and could lead to further gains later?
So are you claiming that pols regularly lie about specific promises? Or are you saying that just the specific promises should be studied?
If it’s the former, I’ll call bullshit and ask you for a cite. If it’s the latter, then I’ll agree completely.
Another problem, btw, is that many bills are so complex. For instance, a candidate may promise to do two different things, but a bill may come up that will require the candidate to prioritize and accept the lesser of two evils and fulfill the more important promise and break the lesser promise. Or in order to get his bill passed, he may have to agree to vote for another bill that he wouldnt normally have voted for.
After piddling around on Google for a half-hour or so, it seems like to me that Andros might be right. The promises themselves are the sort of blather that I ridiculed in the OP.
For example, the The California Voter Foundation’s Archive of Campaign Promises tracks three promises made by each candidate, and they go like this:
I’d love to give you the objective evaluations for the above drivel, but guess what. The California Voter Foundation called upon the candidates to evaluate themselves!.
And guess how they scored. No, really. Guess. That’s right! They did everything they promised and more! So…
[ul]
[li]California’s diverse population is now united[/li][li]Everyone in California can now afford college[/li][li]California has no more punch card ballot systems[/li][li]California has rooted out fraud and waste[/li][li]California is managing its investments prudently[/li][li]California has restored environmental and civil rights protections[/li][/ul]
So do you have a cite that says they failed in what they did? While that site is defnintely self-selecting, it was meant to. They asked the candidates early on what their three top priorities were (not priorities, not specific promises) and then asked them several years later to make the case that they have made progress on those priorities.
What the hell is your point?
Neurotik wrote:
Is that some kind of joke? 
(Hint: those aren’t just plain underlines in the bullet points.)
You didn’t get it the first time. Why should I say it again?
Lib -I don’t have much to say on the issue, but I did want to say that I love the title of this thread!
Oops, I thought you were linking to the site again, just to specific promises.
After going through a few of your links, I see that they prove nothing. Let’s see, you link to an editorial that advocates increasing fees, but while increasing scholarships to poorer students. Proves nothing about whether students can afford to go to college. Plus, you completely ignore the California State University System (not the same thing as UC, about half the price) and the California Community College system.
Your last link is a story about how the Attorney General is cracking down on hate crimes in the wake of increases post-9/11. Remind me how that disproves that the AG is restoring civil rights enforcement? Sounds like he’s enforcing it to me. We’ll give you half points for that.
The next one that is bullshit is the reforming thing. He said that he will reform the system. He sent an order stating that all punch card balloting systems must be phased out by 2006. Sounds like a reform to me. He pushed for a bond act to fund the transition to new technology. Sounds like helping to achieve his priority to me. You’re being disingenuous, Lib. We’ll giive you another half point.
The third one is the fraud and waste one. She promised to continue to root out fraud and waste. Which she has, AFAIK. So there is still fraud and waste in CA, big deal. Doesn’t change the fact that she has lived up to her campaign promise of continuing to root out fraud and waste, as she has rooted out $2 billion. Not shabby. No points there.
Anyway, I don’t feel like spending much more time on this so I’ll summarize what I have.
So we have 8 candidates with three promises each. That’s 24 total promises. You have cites “disproving” 6 of them. So we have a 75% success rate just going by your own research. But we already have shown that the college one is total bullshit. So now down to five. Shown the fraud and waste one is total bullshit as well, down to 4. So we’re up to 83%. Of course, that’s giving you full points for the ones I originally gave you half points for.
Sorry, once again Lib you come up short.
I’m certainly saying that it’s the breaking of the specific promises that gets peoples’ hackles up.
Look, I know that’s how it works, you know that’s how it works . . . and the candidates know that’s how it works. So why promise something that you know you might not be able to act on?
Hey, I just picked some at random. Knock yourself out.
Glad I brought you a smile, Meatros!
Today’s award for bullshit:
“We must rise above partisan politics and stand up for our values here at home, because family and faith and responsibility matter more than power and partisanship and privilege.”
Courtesy of Joe Lieberman, candidate for Prez '04.
I give it a 6.5 for incomplete alliteration (couldn’t he have come up with another f-word after “family and faith”? Freckles? Fries? Free beer?).
I’m glad though that he is gonna stand up for my values. In fact, since I don’t have any I’m glad that there’s one Democrat who’ll invent some.
(Fidelity?)
FIDELITY!!! YES!!!
Perfect, Andros! I guess gays, atheists, and slackers are just shit outta luck. (Of course, so are straights, theists, and hard workers once he gets elected.)
I can have faith in that.
I agree with Jonathan Chance. I like the libertarians but they’re just going to have to simmer down if they want the general population to take them seriously. Baby steps libertarians, baby steps.
And I never thought I would say this about anyone but I think Joe Lieberman would be a worse president than George W. Bush :eek:. I will absolutely do everything in my power to relocate to another country if that vile excuse for a human being is elected to our highest office.
Libertarianism? Bah! The real changing force in America is found in the Radical Moderate Party, founded by Doug Robarchek. Here is their party platform for 2000 (I lost my paper copy and the Charlotte Observer archives don’t go back that far).
Bow to my sexuality! Make way for the Bisexual Empowerment/Equal Status Symposium! Together we’ll take congress! Well … okay, not the ugly ones;)
[sub]Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a mainstream politician who didn’t try to appeal to one’s particular flavor of deity worship?[/sub]