DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Can we really afford the PR tour?

So Vice President Joe Biden was in Columbus this afternoon and besides the traffic headaches involved with a high profile visitor, I was wondering if we can honestly afford the financial impact involved with the logistics of such an endeavor. All bridges and interchanges had either a State Highway Patrolman, a Sheriff, or a local Police Officer stationed. All overpasses were checked for bombs, who knows how many flights were interrupted at the airport, and how many other security measures, one can only imagine....
and for what? a short speech about the affordability of college today, followed by a few pre-selected questions in a fake question and answer photo-opportunity, which amounted to an unofficial campaign speech for his boss' re-election.

This is another example of wasting tax payer money which is already stretched too thin. I'd love to know what the final price tag was on this couple hour visit.

In fairness, this question must be asked of every administration in the past as well as the present one, no matter the economic conditions of the times. Protection is important, and regarless of the speech or speechmaker, necessary for national security. When President Reagan was shot back in the 80's, there was an hours-long period of chaos and confusion which followed (anyone remember Alexander Haig stating, "Im in charge?"). Now, a security breach involving VP Biden might not rise to the severity of a presidential assassination attempt, but all efforts should be made to ensure the safety of our elected officials.

I'm sure that Rep. Giffords and her family would agree.

If we are to be a society that has contact with its political administrators, such undertakings (and the cost attached to them) are simply the cost of doing business in America.

Besides, there are many other more impactful systemic sources of fiscal hemmorhaging that could be controlled before national security needs to be compromised.

An inconvenience? No doubt.
A necessity? In my mind, yes.

Aside from the scenario you've described, the only other alternative is to have elected politicians who are inaccessible and unreachable by the populace. That simply won't do in a representative republic. The 'elected ones' MUST be accessible to their public... or they will be further insulated from accountability than they already are.

'Tain't a perfect setup, but it beats the alternative, imho.

.02

the answer is no, we can't.. So please, do us all a favor, and invoice every adminstration in the last 100 or so years for all the PR tours they conducted..

I'd love to see that money come back

Try living a mile from Obama's Hawaiian hale.

btw...kind of funny story. The Obamas stay in a friend of a friends house and I am also very good friends with the adult kids of the neighbor two houses down. Between them apparently they rented a house for Michelle's mom.

Well Barack was delayed getting to Hawaii for a few legislative reasons and one night Michelle and her mom were drinking and cussing up a storm. Like literally yelling obscenities that were obviously audible talking about whatever...not a fight.

I heard about it a week or so ago from my friend.

And then I read that Michelle Obama doesn't appreciate being demonized as an "angry black woman". My buddy had a good laugh at that.

I know everyone knows your business and if there was a microscope on me all the time it wouldn't be always perfect. but it was pretty funny that she came out with that this week to me.

Yes, we can afford it to do it... or should I say, we can't afford to not do it. It's important for the President and the Vice President to get out and speak in different venues around the country and be out in front of the people and not walled up in some ivory tower in Washington DC either out of fear for security or out of budget concerns.

Well this cat sure hasnt stayed locked up in any ivory tower. A country club clubhouse maybe but not in DC!

I agree DC.. the Administration does need to be out and speaking.

I do have one issue...and that is when the speech turns into a campaign. And then they are essentially using tax payor monies towards a re-election effort. And frankly that is or should be illegal. And the hard part of course is determining what is PR and what is campaign in this political and sleazy landscape. And I feel it should be the same regardless of political party....but I think if the intent(or the determined/inferred intent) of a speech/event is campaigning...then all costs need to come out of the administration's re-elections funds. And I am sure there is something sort of set up that states this....

But WE ALL know the purpose of this particular speech had nothing to do with PR but everyting to to with re-election....but technicalities forces the US tax payors to foot the bill. And unfortunately....that is not fair to other candidates (in every party) nor to those that have no decision in footing that bill.

I agree with you in theory but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. About the only event that you can say is strictly campaigning is a fundraiser. Any other speaking engagement where they talk about what they've done and what they plan to do next about any issue is going to be part official and part campaigning and I don't see that there is anything we can do about it. That is one of the reasons that defeating incumbents is so difficult, they have a built in advantage.