I never disputed that their pledge IS a pledge; I've consistently referred to their pledge as just that (I did put it in quotes all of ONCE, but still called it a pledge.) What I dispute is that it's a meaningful or productive pledge rather than rhetorically marketing a narrow interest as the popular will. It's a bona fide, but worthless, pledge. A pledge not to kill puppies in the well of the Senate would be just as legitimate and "principled", but far less of a barrier to deficit elimination.

Frankly, it's hard to understand Obamas delay in bowing to objections that hiking taxes on people making $250,000/yr ignores the fact that's not "rich" in the Northeast, CA and similar places, or his belated embrace of a rhetorically easy to market literal "millionaire tax hike." Except, of course, as political theater: Now the poor and middle class will see the Man of the People heroically try to end plutocracy and corporate welfare sucking the nation dry, only to be tragically defeated by pawns of the greedy; then they'll rush to the 2012 polls and re-elect him with the Congressional votes to pass his visionary policies. Never mind that Romney and Perry aren't among the Congressional Republicans whose approval ratings are in the low teens, or the Senate Democratic caucus getting pounded like a Homecoming Queen at a frat kegger; even with election and healthy Democratic Congressional majorities Obama wouldn't walk his talk any more than he did last time. This isn't a policy initiative, it's more of BOTH parties preventing riots in the streets while protecting their corporate owners sacred cash cow. That's the ultimate entitlement, and the real reason the federal government owes $14 trillion dollars, mostly to people who refuse the tax money that must pay that debt.