This is just part of a more generic political rant. It’s amazing how often the president (not just shrub, any in recent memory) tends to show up places just as that new dam/communitycenter/highway project is being funded. There he is on the podium with your congressman, the dedication ceremony being paid for by public funds as a function of his position. Any time the president shows up, it’s on your dime and he wants something. Othewise, he’d just stay at Camp David (much nicer than Crawford in my estimation).
BTW, I understand shrub’s most recent campaign swing through the northwest was paid for by the Department of the Interior.
/sidetrack:
seal_cleaner? “tubadiva didn’t like my old name - so I changed it!”
I take it you used to be seal_clubber. I like the new name, I really do.
It sounds innocent at first glance, but… 
[hijack]RTFirefly, you said “off of”. In a thread title.
:mad:
I’m sorry. I’m going to have to kill you. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business. [/hijack]
That was me. I can’t afford to be pitted or…BANNED at my age. Plus she gave me pie.
If the President wants to “give policy information and lay out administration goals and values” then it shouldn’t be that much work to have his speechwriters rework his campaign speech into a statement that he can appropriatedly post on his website.
Because I had to go to whitehouse.gov in the course of my job; I needed to ascertain whether an obscure bill that had passed Congress had been signed by Bush. I tripped over this along the way, and it seemed wrong to me.
I contributed to Jonathan Chance’s thread on that subject not too long ago. Can’t see the point in repeating myself for no better reason than to make you happy. I’ve criticized Bush on Iraq on this MB until I’m tired of hearing myself talk about it. I’ve spoken out about his environmental and energy policies. In another forum this morning, I criticized Bush’s inaction on Education Secretary Rod Paige, whose ‘success’ as Houston school superintendent (that catapulted him to his current position) was a matter of cooking the numbers to make the problems go away.
Besides, the logic of “we shouldn’t have a Pit thread about X if Y>X and we haven’t had a Pit thread about Y” is really pretty silly. We post about the things we encounter, in one way or another. I encountered this; I posted about it.
FWIW, there’s now a bunch of these Bush-Cheney 2004 speeches on http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ for your benefit.
No, I’m really much more concerned with what fat-cat supporters are at the table when he and other high Administration officials are conducting the public’s business, and what was said then.
Look, it’s really simple: I realize that things aren’t separable at times. But when one thing is easily distinguishable from the other, political campaigns shouldn’t be run on the public dime - unless all sides have equal access to that funding.
I don’t know about the press, but it would be awfully surprising, given the tenor of the remarks, if these speeches were open to the general public:
Not only that, but he used publically owned equipment to e-mail those speeches to interested subscribers.
You can stop counting now.
So, are publicly owned web servers and email services the next incarnation of “franking privileges”? Franking Privileges have been restricted to exclude campaign materials. What’s the difference between sending out campaign mailers to constituents on the people’s dime and publishing campaign materials on the people’s webserver/email services?
The general consensus is that this is a bad practice and that publicly owned web servers and other IT services should not be used for campaign purposes. Time for some reform a la Franking Privileges?
Enjoy,
Steven
that’s a good point, Mtgman. and I would think that prohibitions from soliciting funds would also prohibit advertising opportunities to donate (as in what’s the difference between calling some one asking for a donation and calling some one to tell them about this nifty fund raiser??) and/or reporting on the results of fund raiser (which this seems to be), especially since certain supporters are named in the speech - how is this any different morally than the ‘certain large contributors get to spend the night in the Lincoln suite’? “certain large contributors get named in my speech which is then quoted on the official WH web site”
No, what’s simple is that you came across something done by a president you don’t like and without a scintilla of research to find out whether it was standard (as in, practice by every White House since the invention of the internet) or legal, you decided to have a temper tantrum here in the pit.
The fact is, having these speeches archived on the White House website is helpful to journalists, friends and foes of the president and historians. They’ve got a one-stop shop for all the public remarks made by the president during his term of office.
Speaking of which, maybe this will cheer you up: Here’s Bush’s famous “century and a half” gaffe, preserved correctly forever for all to find.
Allow me to descend to the OP’s level for one second:
Well at least Bush’s “misuse of public resources” doesn’t cause permanent damage to government property like Clinton’s staff did when they left the White House.
So there! Asshole.
(re-ascending . . . complete.)
Cite?
Oh, yeah: Where’s the outrage, pubbies?
No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports
By DAVID GOLDSTEIN - The Kansas City Star
Date: 05/17/01 22:15
WASHINGTON – The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.
The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted.
From page 80 of the GAO report:
“We searched major newspapers and selected magazines for any news reports regarding the condition of the White House office space during the 1981, 1989, or 1993 presidential transitions and found only one such mention. The March 1981 issue of Washingtonian magazine indicated that incoming Reagan administration staff had some complaints about the condition of the EEOB that were similar to observations made by EOP staff in 2001.”
The OP is absurd. I for one am glad that the White House is building an archive of presidential materials that is so readily accessible to the average person (you’ll note in the biography section that Clinton’s biography contains a link to the archive of Clinton materials at the National Archive). I think it’s just dandy that the average schmoe can go to the White House site and find every public word uttered by the current officeholder, and is just a few links away from finding every public word uttered by preceding officeholders. This is the sort of thing we ought to encourage, not denigrate.
What, all one other Administration? Houston, we’ve got a small sample size here.
And however one names them, aren’t rants what the Pit is for??? Maybe I should move them to ATMB.
Speaking of which, maybe this will cheer you up: Here’s Bush’s famous “century and a half” gaffe, preserved correctly forever for all to find.
[/QUOTE]
Such a famous gaffe that I never heard of it before now, and reasonably so. (I assume this is an attempted whoosh of some sort. On a Gaffe Scale from 0 to 100, that’s about a .00006.)
I gotta admit, RT, I don’t find any outrage in myself here.
It’s enormously helpful to journalists of all stripes to have those suckers available at whitehouse.gov. I used it extensively during the Clinton years.
I could see an argument where campaign speeches shouldn’t be archived there but I also recognize that every single thing a sitting president does can be considered a ‘campaign act’ so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
You’re right that we’re only two administrations into the web age. Maybe as things shake out such speeches will end up at the respective campaign sites. But for now it isn’t.
I agree with Dewey that it’s actually quite useful to have a one-stop emporium of the President’s activities and messages. Think of its value to the future historian: “Man, look at all the time he spent soaking the fat cats for money while he pissed away his political support.” 