Dear Dubya:
I realize that sometimes the line gets blurred between your roles as President of the United States and as leader of your party and candidate for election as President in 2004. But this isn’t one of those times.
See ‘your’ website? Its URL is www.whitehouse.gov. That means you get to use it, but on behalf of the American people. I realize you get to put your own particular spin on this, like using it to claim that the Iraqi war was part of the War on Terrorism. That sort of thing is your prerogative, even if you’re wrong, which you are. But let’s not get sidetracked here.
OTOH, with something like “Remarks by the President at Bush-Cheney 2004 Reception”, there’s no ambiguity. That’s a speech to supporters of your election effort. That’s a political speech, which is for your own benefit and for the benefit of your political supporters. Have your election committee set up a bushcheney2004 website, and post your messages to your political supporters there. But as one head of state to another, I’d suggest you keep them off the U.S. government’s webspace. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rufus T. Firefly
President of Freedonia
You do understand, **RTF[/], that the President of the United States holds a political office and that, like him and his policies or not, his primary duties involve getting reelected? You might as well protest that the Pope is a Catholic priest, or that water runs downhill. Surely, you can find something more significant to get your shorts in a bunch about.
Who wants to start the countdown to the Republican claims that Clinton did it too? I have no idea whether Clinton did or not, of course, but I’m pretty confident that’s where this is heading.
Anyone want to take a gander at the home pages for their senators/representatives to see whether they do the same kind of electioneering on their congressional websites?
Look, the guy is President. He’s welcome to post anything related to his duties in that office there. Including speeches, proclamations, photographs of him at ribbon-cutting ceremonies, whatever. As long as he’s acting as President.
But speeches that comprise part of his election effort, or part of the election efforts of other partisan candidates - no.
There are blurry areas. But this was to “Bush-Cheney 2004.” That’s not blurry. That’s his political campaign. This isn’t rocket science.
His duties to himself and his party involve getting elected. Not his duties to the American people.
Yes, it’s hard to separate the political from the Presidential in many cases. If he blathers on about how wonderful his tax cuts are for America, that’s political. But he signed those tax cuts as President, and he’s perfectly within his rights as President to justify those tax cuts on the public dime.
But this is over the line; there’s no ambiguity. This was specifically part of his re-election campaign.
No, it’s not. Too bad you’re on the wrong side of such a simple issue. Whether or not the speeches are part of an election campaign, they still give policy information and lay out administration goals and values and should be available to the public on that website. Even if it’s a pack of lies.
Not just a speech, a campaign speech to political supporters. It was not a speech given in any official capacity as POTUS. The administration is misusing the White House website (which belongs to the public not to Bush/Cheney) to campaign for reelection. The site should be limited to official, non-partisan info about the White House. It is not intended to offer a tax payer funded propaganda outlet to the Bushistas
Diogenes and RTFirefly - with all the other things Bush has been doing that are far more worthy of criticism, why did you pick something as inane, nitpicky and downright pointless as this topic?
Is this a joke? I can see it now: “The White House is a large white house in Washington D.C. People live in it, who may or may not be legitimately elected Presidents of the United States. We can’t tell you what they do or anything about what is happening now at the White House, because that would be partisan.”
Christ, the deficit is projected to reach over $500 billion in a few years. Don’t you think that issue is more important than whining about petty, insignificant things like this?
Not that I’m a Republican, but I was going to bring up that whole deal with Al Gore making campaign calls from government property, or whatever the hell that was about. I figure, since I rolled my eyes at that non-issue, I don’t really have a right to get hot and bothered about this one.
Oh, bullshit. If the speeches weren’t there, you and RT would be complaining about “What does he have to hide; what is he telling his fat-cat supporters that he’s not telling the American public?”
To respond to minty, I don’t recall whether Clinton did it. If he didn’t, he should have. If it’s a public speech – that is to say, if the press is invited or if it’s to a general audience, it ought to go on the site.
Yes, Clinton did. The stuff is archived at the National Archives. Not sure if it’s complete – the intro to the site seems to indicate that the White House web site archiving, like much of the early web, was a bit haphazard.
It ought to be archived on the White House web site, IMO. But I’m willing to be talked out of that particular O – right now it seems managable, but 50 years from now every “President Jenna Bush’s remarks to the American Flying Car Political Action Committee” speech will make it a cumbersome website.
Wasn’t there a huge fucking outcry wrt Gore or someone like that making (gasp) phone calls while he was in his office that were related to his election efforts?
there is, ISTM, a very clear and precise line - “reelection/election” not to be done w/office resources.
OTOH, I’m far more pissed off at his foreign non policies, domestic shit, and, in general, how he’s fucked up since taking office.
Who pays the salaries of the people that put up the whitehouse website ? Who pays the line charges ? Is the server owned by the government, or does the RNC pay rent to taxpayers for the use of federal property ?
The pubbies were right to bitch about campaign phonecalls from government offices during the Clinton years. It’s just as unethical now that we have an incompetent fool in the whitehouse. Remember, Bush did promise the american people that, if elected, he’d raise the moral standard in Washington. Now he’s pushing the limits of ethics for partisan gain.
You are factually incorrect. What was banned (and remains banned) is using government resources (including the telephones, etc.) to raise funds. Which was why Clinton’s people were so careful (and I’m sure the Bush people are careful) to solicit funds after those coffee meetings, not during them.
Gore did technically break the law, although it was an extremely techinical violation of an extremely dumb law, crafted by congresspeople who don’t sleep on the government property (usually ). An exception should have been and should be carved out for persons calling from their residences if the residence happens to be government property.
No, there is a very clear and precise line that “soliciting campaign funds” is not to be done with office resources. And the line isn’t even that clear and precise.
Unless there is a link or something on the website where you can give money to the reelection coffers, then it’s not the same thing at all. It’s just a reproduction of a speech that the president made and that some people may want to access. All of the president’s speeches, given in whatever capacity, are accessible on the website (from a certain date, I’m sure).
