The Dems are free to circulate a pledge of their own, and live with the language in it, this pledge is signed totally voluntarily with no coercion from the party, overt or subtle. This is hardly the only pledge out there available to be signed. People must live with the consequences of their pledges and their votes, if the Dems want to try to get their caucus to sign pledges that many would consider unreasonable then come November they'll pay for it, or not, as appropriate.
But the whole point of national pledges is to convince electoral majorities a partys candidates are committed to things large public majorities ardently support. Republicans didn't float a pledge not to increase taxes on the indepedently wealthy, and Democrats (probably) would be just as savvy (though they are notoriously awful at retail politics even when large majorities support an issue; national healthcare has proven that repeatedly). I'm sure most Democrats would be happy to sign, and honor, a pledge not to cut elderly medical care and/or pensions--which is exactly what necessary entitlement reforms would do, in part. Many might find that pledge unreasonable, but polls have consistently shown 70-80% of Americans not only find it reasonable but demand it, and Dems attempting to curry favor by making necessary cuts impossible won't help the situation any more than Republicans making necessary tax hikes impossible.
No, the whole point of pledges is to make it clear to the voters, primary and general, and the party leadership, that you hold a view and are voluntarily handing a loaded gun to them to point at your head if you betray your pledge. What the pledge is, and whether or not people respect or agree with it, obviously effects votes, good or bad, depending on the pledge.
Heck of a sacrifice, huh?
Pledges to do (or not do) what people were already going to do (or not do) anyway aren't a noble principled stand or voluntarily hostage to voters, they're a rallying cry to the base and ultimatum to fling at opponents. When a pro-choice liberal "pledges" to fight abortion restrictions, the whole planet already knew they would; pledging it publicly is just a cheap publicity stunt to tell the base electing anyone else is tantamount to slaughtering women in the streets. Such pledges are an escape clause, so opponents who insist MAKING concessions is contingent on RECEIVING concessions, and that the nations interest requires sacrifices from everyone, politicians can drape stubborn refusal in pretensions to principled commitment. The pledge doesn't change politicians behavior, it just lets them indulge the conceit they're bowing to the peoples will rather than doing what they please.When I was in HS, a friend of mine and moondogs had a poster of a mule in his stall, with a caption reading, "I'm not stubborn, I'm just true to my convictions." That's all the taxes pledge does: Present obstinance as commitment. Unfortunately, it incidentally makes compromise impossible because it elevates momentary rhetorical absolutism to non-negotiable long term policy. Again, polls shows 3 out 4 voters WANT a millionaire tax hike, and 5 out of 6 want NO Social Security cuts, so all that's missing now is Democrats reverently (and publicly) saying, "I have heard the peoples will: Tax hikes on millionaires and no Social Security cuts!" Then all routes to federal solvency will be eliminated; go, team....
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 21/09/2011 at 01:02:21 AM
Ok so increasing taxes on people making 1million+ is also NOT ok with Republicans
- 18/09/2011 04:43:29 PM
1156 Views
You act surprised, this has been said since the beginning, openly and repeatedly
- 18/09/2011 05:48:57 PM
549 Views
is this pledge legally binding?
- 18/09/2011 06:52:44 PM
480 Views
Re: is this pledge legally binding?
- 18/09/2011 08:14:49 PM
664 Views
That's rather easy though, isn't it?
- 18/09/2011 09:02:49 PM
676 Views
Not really
- 18/09/2011 10:02:12 PM
639 Views
Many will find any pledge unreasonable.
- 19/09/2011 07:01:20 AM
585 Views
Too bad for them, any pledge stands or falls on its own merits just like in real life
- 19/09/2011 08:35:13 PM
570 Views
If elected I pledge not to post on the RPMB. 
- 20/09/2011 01:54:00 PM
727 Views
- 20/09/2011 01:54:00 PM
727 Views
That didn't really make sense
- 20/09/2011 07:26:40 PM
659 Views
Sure it does: Pledging to do what one wanted to do anyway is rhetoric, not principle.
- 20/09/2011 08:04:25 PM
692 Views
Now you're debating with the definition of the word
- 20/09/2011 08:22:53 PM
659 Views
No, I accept the definition of the word, but reject cynical abuse of it.
- 21/09/2011 01:37:01 AM
715 Views
Could have done with out the kegger imagery But this just makes it your opinion
- 21/09/2011 02:10:47 AM
620 Views
But this just makes it your opinion
- 21/09/2011 02:10:47 AM
620 Views
There is a problem with compromise in this situation and lot of it the way it is being framed
- 19/09/2011 02:57:32 PM
666 Views
and if a republican becomes president, i'm sure all taxes will go up in 2013
- 20/09/2011 04:39:21 PM
725 Views
Well, I'm glad they've at least raised the income range they were discussing. *NM*
- 18/09/2011 06:10:57 PM
307 Views
This really doesn't address what Buffet was talking about, but that's not a surprise either.
- 18/09/2011 08:35:25 PM
504 Views
Simple change the law so capital gains are considered income, that will increase taxes on the rich *NM*
- 19/09/2011 01:21:41 AM
276 Views
They are already.
- 19/09/2011 02:42:08 AM
476 Views
Maybe I should be clearer
- 19/09/2011 02:59:34 AM
639 Views
I've long felt the capital gains rate has ruined public companies
- 19/09/2011 05:13:40 AM
538 Views
Actually, I think you AND Tom, as well as Isaac, are right.
- 19/09/2011 07:13:56 AM
766 Views
Class warfare doesn't work.....if it did, the R's would not have kicked butt in 2010
- 19/09/2011 03:21:17 PM
543 Views
"If there's a class war in this country, my class is winning."--Warren Buffet
- 20/09/2011 07:54:45 PM
679 Views
There should be a set tax percentage that every US citizen pays. *NM*
- 19/09/2011 01:25:13 PM
319 Views
+1 - a flat tax, with no or limited deductions is the way to go *NM*
- 19/09/2011 03:16:53 PM
262 Views
Agreed
- 19/09/2011 03:46:47 PM
635 Views
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
- 20/09/2011 02:48:19 PM
622 Views
I fully advocate massive cuts to both entitlement programs and military spending *NM*
- 20/09/2011 11:53:10 PM
297 Views
And every child should be adequately fed and recieve a good education *NM*
- 19/09/2011 10:40:58 PM
272 Views
Why not a fixed wage for all US workers; then the problem solves itself. 
- 20/09/2011 01:56:35 PM
511 Views
- 20/09/2011 01:56:35 PM
511 Views
That works if you get rid of regressive taxes like the sales tax.
- 21/09/2011 04:34:07 PM
520 Views
a lot of people don't seem to understand that sales tax is a regressive tax
- 21/09/2011 04:44:16 PM
579 Views
It doesn't have to be
- 21/09/2011 07:45:31 PM
682 Views
Your solution is to tax people's savings? Tax "money storage", so that would be banks, right?
- 21/09/2011 10:29:36 PM
651 Views