Replies

How does this assertion square with two Clinton terms, Perot and the current crop of Democrats running now?

I think that voters try to ignore shortcomings if it isn't blatant. Monicagate was never in this category anyway. Clinton never campaigned on the single theme of his personal marital fidelity. We knew he'd cheated before he was elected. And Monicagate didn't break until after the '96 election anyway.

You can't compare the Bush repudiation of his own no-new-taxes pledge to Clinton's record. Bush raced around the country chanting no-new-taxes like a Buddhist monk. Clinton's main issue, inasmuch as he could be pinned down on it, was national health care. And he did try for it, using Hillary as his congressional proxy. So he tried to fulfill his major promise. The key difference is that he didn't do the opposite of what he'd promised.

What I'm saying is that trying to fulfill your campaign agenda works well enough for re-election, whether you succeed in enacting it into law or not. But when you stab the voters in the back by campaigning for one thing and then do the exact opposite, they aren't going to like it. Because even the stupidest voter knows that voting for such candidates will render their votes completely meaningless.

You can't tolerate blatant liars (on policy) in public office. It makes voting completely absurd.

And I'm not sure how Perot enters into it. He wasn't elected so discussing him in the context of presidents who break campaign pledges isn't relevant.