As naïve as it sounds and old fashioned, to this day to a great extent when voting leaders into office we require more than anything else honesty and sincerity from them. We know better than to expect it from them completely. That would be asking far too much. Yet, when they tell us they will do this or that when they get elected we expect them to do at least a good chunk of that. The main talking points anyway. What else are they worth but their promises and their efforts to get them through? It's their currency.

Things always arise once candidates are in the process of running for office. This and that happen in the world around us, and usually candidates respond as they come up. It may not even be up to them often as when things occur often enough the press or someone from a town hall gathering will get up and ask them about such and such a current even and want to know what they would do.

Sometimes we get a response that comes as a result of an alert and aware political team anticipating such queries. Other times it comes out of the blue and the candidate does the best they can on their feet at the moment. On such occasions we hear transient promises meant to satiate curiosities about passing phenomena. They are often simply gauges of where the person stands on larger issues; to get a better idea of their overall political tenor and/ or to test their responses to current events and the changing world.

As long as they are fleeting events that come and go, handled well before that person will ever be in office, we forget about such promises and really don't hold them to them. We don't put much stock in them, because it's those main points they repeat over and over which, after a time, we begin to identify them with. We understand things come and go, but the things they say over and over we expect them to make good on one way or another. If not, they better have a good reason for not coming through.

Not delivering is usually not as easily accepted as are adjustments or changes, and they are easy to accept in less than dire circumstances. Though the reasons for the changes aught to be good and solid, to hand out cop outs tells us exactly what sort of person we are dealing with. It inserts a link of mistrust into the chain of a relationship and after too many it can easily weaken the bonds causing people to slow the relationship or end it altogether. Relationships are two way streets no doubt. Ain't love grand? (No seriously?)

Though with politics we go in with our guard up, nonetheless we expect a return on the investment. We expect delivery on the services ordered. As with friendships or business relationships etc, when politicians don't come through on those main points, it gets difficult to look at them as the people they said they would be. At one point they obviously felt they could deliver, so what happened?

Yet, politicians are in good positions. They are unlike friends who we can unfreind, stop following, block, stop taking calls from, accidentally drop flower pots on from 5th story windows, call the police on for writing I'm sorry letters in construction paper spanning the entire hallway of our apartment buildings, etc. We are stuck with them for the time period of their term in office. Unlike business relationships that we can get out of through clauses, outright terminate or by setting them up with our ex-girlfreinds, again for a set time we are stuck with them.

It's really difficult to get rid of them before their time's up anyway. They can drag out their terms as miserable failures if they so choose and that is their right, but before their term is up they can always make good, make it up to us, follow through, chose not to be let downs and fulfill some of those real meat and potato promises. At least fulfill a good enough amount to engender trust and that good warm feeling inside denoting we were not taken advantage of and did not waste our votes.

We were seriously let down by the previous administration and that was evidenced not just in the overwhelming signal sent by giving majorities to the other party in both chambers of Congress and the White House by voters from the left, center and even right. It was evidenced in the major attempts at whitewashing the bad and all the revisionism that came out of that administration and still does. No other administration ran so quickly to Madison Ave to give themselves a post relationship facelift in hopes we would forget the vegetarian restaurant dumpster in the middle of July morning breath and worst since Nixon buyers remorse.

It was evidenced by the fact no matter how much cash and hooplah was thrown at the last election and how much the party in the majority was absent from the scene the party of the previous administration was only able to regain one chamber of Congress. Given the disappointment with the current administration at the time felt by the many that voted for them in 2008 and the anger conservatives felt about the healthcare issue, that was a big miss.

Now we have a president that has struggled to get his feet under himself. He promised a stimulus and was voted in partly on that promise. Only thus far it has not panned out so well - certainly not in terms of jobs, which after all is where it counts for most of us. He stimulated, but with mixed results.

His healthcare plan was passed, but that was not one of his major campaign promises and that would not have been a problem, but he spent an entire year tying the nation up to get it passed. In the middle of an economic emergency this did not look good. He was successful, but it was not a major promise. So there was a lukewarm response at best.

He promised to finish the job in Afghanistan and get the person responsible for 9/11 then return. He was successful with the first part of the promise. He succeeded where for all his talk Dick Cheney failed and dropped the ball both. But now, he wants to stay three years to stabilize the country via nation building. Yet, we are in an economic emergency. The national heart to do it isn't there and that money would be so much better spent back here.

They will not be “stable” for anything in three years anymore than they are now – not after ten years. We've been there ten years and it's dragging. Bin Laden was taken out with a little intelligence, two SEAL teams and some paramilitary. Al Qaeda's newly appointed number two was killed by a drone attack just days ago. We don't need the hundreds of thousands of soldiers there to fight terrorism. He has time to bring our boys and girls serving in Afghanistan home as promised before the next election. Nation building? How about Louisiana? Stabilizing? What about Chicago?

Though not a number one priority immigration reform was right up there in the second column and was a hot topic in the 2008 campaigns. He has started on it and that is good. Hopefully he will do a little more to make things a little more practically permanent, without amnesty, but with things like penalties etc and real paths so we can know who's here and increase our revenue stream bringing folks in sensibly.

I would like to list things about his opponent but I can't yet. As yet there's no competition. Coming through on some of those promises and dialing back the stinginess for voters who remained faithful after 2008 would go a long way towards not pleasing for elections sake, but doing what he told people were the best things for the country in his opinion. They were his words and a lot of people took those words to heart. People got burned so far, but it's not to late for some change. Perhaps before the next election they will feel the faith again. In the end it's up to him. So far the goosebumps are absent.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.