For the past couple of weeks, Time magazine has been keeping track of how many campaign promises the two major candidates have been making (Gore won this contest by making 100 campaign promises first).
My question is… so what? Is the fact that they make a lot of promises infer that they’ll actually follow through with those promises? I would imagine that the guy who keeps promising the world would most likely be the one that’s full of hot air.
Wouldn’t this be an issue of quality rather than quantity?
When GW first ran for Governor in Texas, he only made a couple of promises…he’s kept both of them, made a few more and kept those… basically, IMHO, he doesnt make a promise he knows he can’t keep, and he only makes a promise after he’s investigated all the pro’s and con’s of achieving that promise. I voted for him then, and I’ll vote for him now as President.
Al Gore can promise anything he wants, because he knows dang well after 8 years around the White House, there’s not one of them that he can actually accomplish. Clinton promised a lot of bull before he was elected, and all I’ve seen from his two terms in office is the end result of feeding all that bull…
It depends on the quality of the promises. Since both canidates promises are around only to laugh at id say that it doesent really matter. What, are you going to be suprised when they break their promises?
Well, I’d be surprised if whoever gets elected doesn’t take some effort to make it seem like he’s trying to fulfil his pledges.
The way I see it, Gore’s trying to flood the public mind with a whole bunch of wonky promises, with the idea that he’s just got to reach a mimimum level of fulfilments. If he gets a huge, generalized base of pledges to take care of, just about anything he does can be construed as him “fulfilling his campaign promises” to set himself up for Term Number Two (if he wins Number One, that is).
