Bush sets new record
 

I can still remember when the GOP reamed Clinton for excessive use of Air Force One. But it looks like he holds no candle to Mr. Bush. It seems a bit unfair to Kerry that he must pay from the coffers of his campaign fund to charter flights, While I pay for Bush to visit the ranch....and every other small town in the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

And I can still remember the DNC and its supporters saying it was perfectly ok. Were you equally outraged by Clinton's use of it?

point/counterpoint.
better than Crossfire around here...

carry on.

I shouldn't be paying for rich white men to fly around the country to try to get re-elected -- Clinton or Bush.

There is a very good reason that it's the case. Unfortunately no one bothers to look into it.

Do you have any idea what it costs an acting President to travel anywhere? Not only does he have to travel but so does his entourage of security, several armored limos, chase cars, Secret Service tactical teams, routes need to be made safe and scouted before hand, etc, etc, etc.

To force a serving President to pay fully for these things would put him at a substantial disadvantage to any challenger.

I think Tecoyah is outraged by the fact that the Republicans were so quick to jump on Clinton for using his airplane, and then turned around and did exactly what they jumped on Clinton for doing. If you're gonna call it wrong, then you'd better not do it yourself.

He also claimed it was "unfair" to Kerry. Was it "unfair" to Dole as well? And was he bothered by that?

The point I'm making is that both sides of the political aisle make these claims and too many people jump up when "the other side" does it but shut their mouths when theirs does.

Be consistent. As pointed out, there is a perfectly good reason why President's can not pay for their required travel without being disadvantaged. If it is so reprehensible that you're paying for Bush to visit his ranch, why was it not reprehensible for Clinton's campaign stops and vacations?

Until people stop buying into the partisan gamesmanship of both parties and stand up for standards that both parties should be living up to the system will never get beyond attack ads and 5 second sound bites.

As far as those who "better not do it themselves" why is it now okay that the DNC is launching this campaign attacking the use of Air Force One? If it was a non issue when the RNC did it why is it not a non issue now?

Yes, I was equally outraged with Clinton. Yes, I was pointing out the hypocritcal nature of the whole mess. No, I am not being inconsistent, as I was the one to point out Mr. Clintons' excessive use as well. It is unlikely I am bieng partisan....as I have no party, Simply because I dislike the lack of clarity both major parties portray.
The unfair nature of this issue has to do with the taxpayer funded nature of these trips, vs. the funds from a campaign coffer, in use by the other candidate. While I admit I truly dislike our current President, that does not imply that I care much for his challenger. I will (for what I see as the health of my country) do what I can to remove Bush from office, even if that means voting for a "lesser of two evils" candidate.

Can we just assume that both Bush and Clinton need a good fiscal spanking, and that legislation is needed to address how much taxpayer money can be used to pay for purely political purposes?

I don't mind taxpayer money being used to protect the President wherever he goes, but at least some of the cost (beyond the paltry sum currently spent) needs to be defrayed to the war chest.

ummm

new book by the left guy on crossfire, had enough, i think..

some interesting facts about the people who helped bush get elected...like enron devoting a jet JUST to bush so he could fly all over the country campaigning at the cost of just 1 1st class ticket, if that.

This isn't new for bush, sorry..membership has its perks i guess...

Has he set the vacation record yet also?

Unless you're paying for lots of rich white men to fly to your house?

As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "rich white men" is unredeemably racist.

I believe that one is still either harding or coolidge....no, i take that back, they stayed in the whitehouse most of the time, but coolidge was fond of afternoon naps and stopping work at 4 pm and harding was fond of giving out prime oil land....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Every US president is a white man. How could that generalization be racist.

Because race has nothing to do with the discussion. Would it be appropriate to say I can't stand my money going to poor black men? Of course not.

The hypocrisy is sickening. As always. For one side to do what it burned the other side for doing is just typical, and ugly.

It's also telling that the first response was purely right wing reaction to Tecoyah's posting. It should have been possible to assume his point was hypocrisy, not right bashing. Assuming the best about each other would be refreshing. Would it kill us to stick to the issue, and debate the point? The instinctive partisen reaction is ugly, too. IMHO.

If someone says something we disagree with, please jump in and jump on. But there sure isn't reason to jump on before then is there?

/soapbox off

The knife cuts both ways, boatin. My point in the first response was to point out that it is no more appropriate that the Republicans did it then as the Democrats doing it now. To criticize the Republicans and not also criticize the Democrats is blatant partisanship.

And, in case you missed it in the rest of my posts, there are perfectly valid reasons for the sitting President to NOT pay full price for the travel. My beliefs on this issue are far from partisan as they apply to any sitting President.

I find it funny how no one recognizes that Bush has been on vacation for nearly half of his term.

He's at Camp David pretty much every other weekend playing Golf or doing something totally unproductive. Hilarious!

I wasn't too happy about it, either. Of course, I wasn't quite so outraged, as I wasn't so politically active or aware back then

Ditto X2.

AND: It is a benefit of the president. Poor pay for the position, communication and security concerns augment the arguement that he use AF 1.

Perfectly valid response and I'll bet that applies to a number of people on the board.

I've followed politics closely since high school (started back around '85 I'd guess). Perhaps your answer sheds a fair amount of light on why many people here don't see how the strategies relate.

Politicians are very similar to Hollywood movie makers. Rarely do they try something completely new, they mostly just rehash old strategies that have been proven to work.

I guess not many people remember Clinton's airport haircut....

That was delightful, wasn't it. Certainly sparked a bit of class warfare type rage in me that I swallowed pretty quickly when I considered the alernatives. I must admit, I was not as outraged by Clinton as Bush, and it is a purely partisan response to the mere fact of them using their office as a campaign tool.

Now, as for the cost of the president moving about, that is more than offset by the media he doesn't need to buy. The President is a news-maker. If he wants coverage, it takes him next to no effort to get it, and only a bit of tweaking to turn the daily working of the government into a campaign event. Yes, Clinton did this too.

No, what really burns my biscuits is the null response from the folks who lambasted Clinton for his behavior. If that isn't a purely partisan response, then I am the Queen of England.

And, as to "Rich White Men" being racist, show me a Poor Hispanic Female Chief Executive and you'd be right. This is the clearest example there is of the difference between racist and not colorblind. If 100% of a group is verifiably one race, gender, and class, then noting that is responsible, not racist.

Uhh..the difference being your money is going to both poor black and white men, whereas only rich white men have been president of America.

The original post smacked of an underlying tone, that inferred that being rich, white and male is somehow wrong. I think this is why its being called racist. In my eyes its just plain bigotted.

I am sorry since you have full access to what the president does while at Camp David, his ranch or in the shitter please enlighten us as to how unproductive he is while on these little vacations.

We should charter Bush a 1989 Yugo to travel the country in, and let his aides and security force ride in a school bus behind.

I am sure the welfare coffers have areas that can be cut to help pay for this.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't rich in any way shape or form, btw.

And he was the POTUS nearly 150 years ago. A lot changes in that time.

Abraham Lincoln didn't use my tax money to fly around the country, campaigning for re-election. Campaigns, and the Presidency in general, should be about what is best for the country -- not the candidate.

He did travel by train and horse an awful lot though and he obviously didn't have a proper security detail travelling with him. Times change, now it's by jet and the Pres gets (and needs) a load more protection.

There are more important things to quarrel over, than who flys more...

this entire thread seems like a prime example of the ridiculous levels that political conversation on this board has sunk too. pretty much every post thus far has been a baited attack of the other side. mods, i thought we were trying to quell such things.

I don't like the President using tax money to travel for the campaign, but considering what happened to JFK, the price is worth it. Even if I'm going to shit bricks in the event of Bush' re-election to office, I'm going to shit bigger bricks to see a president assassinated.

Arise from the dead, oh thread! I command you!

*Makes gestures and waggles fingers*

there are several problems floating beneath the surface of the opening post, i think.

first is the idea that in the american political system, it is ok for an incumbent to engage in permanent campaigning. i do not see how this is beneficial to anyone.

second is the centrality of television as medium for campaigning. this is a problem both in itself (in the surface-orientation of campaign activities---i remember for example the idiotic interpretations of the bush/gore debates, which were reduced to the level of backstage debates over who would get to be prom king/queen) and in the expense entailed for using the medium.

i do not understand why campaigning could not be restricted to a finite period of time before an election, stopping 3-4 days before the vote (the assumption is that voters are able to make considerations of theiur vote and might require a bit of time to do it) and why, duing this period, the networks are not compelled to recognize their service as a public service and give time to campaigns free of charge.

the relation between the first and second points here is circular.

third is the question of the extent to which holding the office of president of the us is parallel to a ceo position in a large corporation. a ceo usually presides more than directly does things---signs off on decisions the details of which are delegated to a professional staff on whose judgements the ceo can rely. the staff is critical, as is trust in that staff. one result of this is leisure--a kind of symbolic capital particular to the corporate elite (how to differentiate yourself from the regular folk? be in the same environment, but not in a position where you actually have to do what they have to do)

(caveat: the above is obviously general---a list of ceos who conform more to the model of the petit bourgeois entrepeneur seems to be beside the point-----though i can see one coming....)

a president is "elected"..whence the problem:
do people expect a different kind of relation to function from an "elected" president?
this simply because the president is elected?
or is it simply a matter of appearance---- the (illusion?) of direct presidential engagement with decision making has to maintained in order to legitimate claims about the "democratic" nature of the system as a whole?

either way, is this problem underneath the reactions to bush's unseemly affection for vacation?

in other words, is there anything going on here that refers to questions of principle?

or is the problem really that the left does not have an apparatus for articulating and disseminating the politics of ad hominem that the right does (radio, fox talking heads, etc etc etc)?
so is the problem really a sense of injury or unfairness on the part of those whose politics are not conservative because bush is not being raked over the coals for this?


fourth: the question of class domination of the american political system. looked at in terms of economic and professional position, the american system resembles an oligarchy.
but you need to be able to use these categories to do the analysis.
if you bracket these categories, you land fairly quickly in the kind of problems that played out above, where actual questions about oligarchy (for example) get diverted into questions about adjectives--with the result that the whole debate implodes.....