Uhh... Awkward. Someone needs to pay their bill.

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 13 years ago

   http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … t-due.html
   
   SS refuses to pay. DNC refuses to pay. Obama's campaign refuses to pay. Newport beach is getting ready to send the bill to collections.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like the city is stupid and didn't get it's ducks in a row. No wonder so many California cities are going bankrupt. They are so completely run by sad little wanna-be politicians trying to find some obsequious way to glom on to any "real" (connected/funded) politician they can, and none of them are doing the work to run their cities. It's all about looking to the future of their political careers or, at least, their retirement. Nobody cares about the actual city (and why should they, the citizens all fear each other anyway, thanks to a divisive media focused on the freakish happenings in the far corners of the worst neighborhoods). Not understanding how a presidential visit works is such a glaring example of municipal incompetence.
      
      The sad part is that mindless partisans will probably take this "incident" and try to make a case against Obama, like HE is in anyway connected to it at all. LOL. God, people are so dumb. Worse, a bunch of unthinking and lazy readers will skim the headline and either defend Obama or condemn him, and none of them will realize that the person who is trying to use this as an argument for something other than local ineptitude is contributing to the ongoing decay of American politics, preying upon the sloth of an electorate that is too busy worrying about their next game of Word With Friends or what's coming up on the Food Network to seek for anything even marginally like truth or even just middle ground.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Shadesbreath, how much of the article did you actually read?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Can I assume that insightful bit of inquiry there is the set up for you to launch into some sort of bewildered response marveling at how I could reach my conclusion, which, clearly, will be wildly different than yours?

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               No. You are making several assumptions. Your initial post in this thread jumped into a rant about other people's assumptions, which you assumed you knew about, just as you are assuming you know what is in my mind.
               
               I did read the entire article and, based on my reading of the information related in the article, I wondered whether you had done so. That question in my mind was based precisely on your rant, and why you had jumped from A to Z so swiftly.
               
               I really don't appreciate your sarcasm, and so I will bow out of this thread permanently. At the same time, I will suggest to anyone else reading this that it makes more sense to read the original linked article than to try to figure out the connection between it and the rant I made reference to.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  If that was actually your question, you could have just asked it. But you didn't. Instead you asked if I had read the article. I can't see how any reasonable, thinking person possessing the least grasp of language (particularly in the context of forum culture) could read your questioning if I'd read it and see anything other than the insinuation that I could not have read the article and still come up with what I did for my post--at least as you see it. Which is fine, you can act like that if you like, but then don't play innocent like this...
                  
                  Please.
                  
                  You don't have to be actually interested in my point or how I came to the conclusions I did (you clearly never were), but don't try to softball an insult at me and then play the martyr when you get called on it.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like a train wreck.
      

      replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 13 years ago

   It wasn't a Presidential visit, it was a campaign fundraiser. Do you think the President should be allowed to campaign with taxpayer dollars?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Cody Hodgeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Uhh....
      
      The article said that it was up to the Secret Service to provide and take care of any money issues, not the campaign.
      
      So, how is Obama "campaigning on taxpayer dollars?"
      
      It sounds like the city screwed up and now the GOP is going to twist it like everything else they twist.
      
      Sad.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The SS doesn't reimburse local law enforcement for presidential visits. The town tried to bill the DNC, Obama's campaign, and the SS. None of them would pay it.
         
         When a candidate does something campaign-related, he can't use taxpayer dollars. This was Obama the candidate, not Obama the POTUS.
         
         There is no standard, as far as I can tell. Usually if a city has enough costs to bill a campaign, they pay it(like Romney's campaign did).
         
         Do you think it proper for taxpayers to pay for campaign security, or should the campaign pay for campaign security?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Cody Hodgeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Except that the story says that the Secret Service has a policy of coordinating with state and county police if the town can't afford to do it.
            
            Essentially, there should have been no cost incurred.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               So, again, you are saying the President's campaign visits should operate the same way as his presidential visits?
               
               Or should there be separation between Presidential activity and campaign activity?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Cody Hodgeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Is that really what you're getting from this?

                  replyreport
         2. 71

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            They are paying or not paying for Presidential security, not campaign security. My answer is yes.

            replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 13 years ago

   Haha, I haven't heard of this before. It seems like some candidates pay the bills, and some give creditors an endless runaround. Springfield was still trying to get a similar bill from 2008 paid.
   
   I wonder if this relates to the public financing option.

   replyreport