If their rules don't reflect what's really happened, then they're lousy rules.

that Politifact can't be trusted.

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:53 PM - Edit history (2)

They rate his promises as "broken" even if he tried to do something about it but was blocked by Congress (i.e. Gitmo). I have called them on it more than once but they just keep basically telling me that their standard for a "broken promise" is that something that he promised during his first campaign (or since then) doesn't happen or isn't likely to happen, not whether or not President Obama reneged on it, which is, for me, what actually constitutes a broken promise. Regardless about what anybody might think about President Obama, I don't think that anybody can realistically argue that he can make the Republicans (and a few Democrats) in Congress stop being a**holes about everything that he proposes (usually for the sake of being a**holes)!!


Occasionally, Politifact gets things right (most of their rulings on Mitt Romney were on target) but other times their rulings seem like one giant to me.

of Government?

Look into it K

their ass.

He did exactly what he promised to do. He signed the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. That is exactly and precisely what he promised to do.

the office gives.

Thus, this is not a broken promise. Had Congress passed it, the POTUS would have signed it. He has not broken a promise unless Congress passes it and he vetoes it.

Some people are just obsessed with the Presidency and think it includes complete control over Congress, and that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of our entire government.

ProudLibDem: they [politifact] just keep basically telling me that their standard for a "broken promise" is that something that he promised during his first campaign (or since then) doesn't happen or isn't likely to happen, not whether or not President Obama reneged on it, which is, for me, what actually constitutes a broken promise.

I think there should be two 'sub'-categories, one for blatant violation of campaign promises, and then one for 'reasonably understandable' broken promises by circumstances beyond one's control from the time the promise was made.

Consider HWBush's campaign promise 'read my lips no new taxes', well that was blatantly violated by HWBush & he subsequently lost reelection to clinton.
.. another blatant broken promise, or one based on a false premise to begin with: In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Richard Nixon stated that "new leadership will end the war" in Vietnam .. "it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's 'secret plan' to end the war was a campaign gimmick..."Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war," .. Nixon [said] that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office [jan69]. As this six month deadline approached, in May 1969, Kissinger asked a group of Quakers to give the admin six more months. "Give us six months, and if we haven't ended the war by then, you can come back and tear down the White House fence"... vn ended ~1973.

Falling into the 'understandable' broken promises category (& not to exonerate gwbush for his 2003 invasion of iraq, which I opposed): There is some latitude for breaking promises. GWBush's pledge to not involve US military in nation building was discarded after [9/11], a change in policy widely viewed as justifiable among his supporters [eh].. Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 pledge to keep [US} out of WWII was similarly abandoned after the Pearl Harbor attack..

Contrast Obama's 'broken promise' of not implementing disabilities act at UN, to hwbushs' 'no new taxes' & nixon's 'war end soon promise' and see how they do not warrant the same label. Obama really promised to do his best to implement the disabilities act, which he fulfilled admirably.
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promise|