Fox News Slams Obama Over Broadway Date Night

Oddly enough I think I answered each and every one of your questions in my column which went up right after yours. This, Michael, sounds just a wee bit like one of those "methinks he doth defend too much" situations. I didn't say he's not entitled, but at least I would think you would give a nod to how horrible the optics are here and what a bad choice it was.

My wife and I both work in self-employed arenas, at least in part. We too have to set up "date night" and use that exact term for it. We sometimes take in a show, a movie or a play, and usually dinner as well. I think it's great. However, when we go out we take our own car, which we pay for. We pay for the gas, the insurance and everything else. Nobody shuts down several blocks of mid-town Manhattan so that we may pass by unmolested, safe and on schedule. We do not ask others to foot the bill for two plane loads of my assistants, co-workers and aides who need to follow my every step, not to mention a bunch of photogs and reporters.

Michael, for you to use phrases like "a night off" or "taking in a show" or "taking a break" without acknowledging that when the President does it, it is far, far, far more than that is just a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

If wasn't so hilarious, it would be sad. Besides all the excellent points you made, what kind of an example do Republicans want the president to set? That we should not travel, that we should not go out and spend money, not spend time with our families? That we all should stay home and be serious? What a pathetic excuse for an opposition party.

GD- I spoke to that point in my comment under Jazz's thread. Did you similarly agree with GWB when he said that the best way for us to fight terrorism was to go shopping? I can see both sides of that argument, to be honest (as I also explain in my other comment) but I'm wondering if you thought that it was also appropriate for Bush to have not asked for shared sacrifice, and for him to have kept up his working vacations at the Crawford ranch.

None of this is new, by the way- I clearly recall the Reagan's being admonished for throwing lavish state dinners and buying new china and ballgowns for Nancy. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Personally I think all of the controversy is pretty silly- if anyone thinks that the spending involved in pork barrel legislation is insignificant, you certainly can't make a case for worrying about the relative nickels and dimes involved in presidential trips and outings- it's purely symbolic.

I agree that the complaint from the RNC is rediculous, especially considering how much time Bush spent on vacation. However, I think it's unfair to implicate Fox News with them. Should they not have reported that the RNC was criticizing the president about this? I read the article, which explains what the president did and what the criticsms were from the RNC. Seems fair to me. The reader has the opportunity to decide (which I did, and concluded the criticisms are baseless).

The issue here is the cost to the taxpayers so that the Obama's could have a date night.

Do me a favor: replace "Obama" with "Bush." Then look inside yourselves, Jazz and Michael, and see if you wouldn't be pissed.

CS, I did see your comments on the other thread, and wrote a response, though mostly about what I see as a decline in Jazz's writings. I chose not to post it. With respect your comments, I too saw both sides of the issue in that earlier episode involving Bush after 9/11. Since I'm one of the idiots who followed his advice and stayed in the stock market as it plummeted, I also agreed with Bush that maintaining our lifestyle was important to reducing the effects of the attacks on our economy. I also agree that insulating the majority of Americans from the sacrifice that our soldiers were making was unfortunate, and I do believe he was rightly criticized for that. I was more outraged at the time by his decision to prevent the media from showing pictures of caskets or military funerals. That was an attempt to sanitize war so we don't have to think about the fact that people are dying.

In this case, though, the "sacrifice" theme doesn't apply at all. Sacrificing our nights out and our travel is exactly the wrong thing for the economy right now, and hey GOP, is not going to help the car companies either. This was just clueless and stupid.

Jazz, as for the "optics," I think Obama is pretty good at that part. The GOP has become surprisingly foolish in that arena, and this is just another example that will fail to win the GOP any converts.

In this case, though, the "sacrifice" theme doesn't apply at all. Sacrificing our nights out and our travel is exactly the wrong thing for the economy right now, and hey GOP, is not going to help the car companies either. This was just clueless and stupid.

Again though, I find the message very mixed and confusing. He recently gave a speech saying 'We're out of money" and he's telling people we shoud save more, not spend. He criticized junkets to Las Vegas, then after taking heat for the effect that had on the local economy, he tried to make amends by...taking a junket to Las Vegas. He needs to make up his mind which message he wants to lead on- be frugal, or keep spending as much as you're able to in order to boost the consumer economy.

And the timing and optics aren't good either- having sent the message that the country is going broke, it doesn't seem right for the inhabitants of our national household to take a pleasure trip to NYC. Most of us know in our own households that even if such expenses are a small fraction of our household expenses, they're the luxuries that we immediately cut when money is tight. It's definitely all symbolism, but somewhat important symbolism IMO. My feelings are obviously mixed though, as I really don't think we should begrudge recreation to our presidents- it's the most stressful job on the planet and they need downtime.

Here's my reply to Jazz, as taken from Jazz's thread"

I'm just not really seeing any sensible basis for accusations of hypocrisy.

1--I don't think taking a weekend trip is the moral equivalent of weeks and weeks (and weeks and weeks [and still more weeks]) of vacation. Let alone all those weeks and weeks of taxpayer-bill-footed assistant travel to another time zone.

2--If the Obamas went to the theater in Washington DC, traffic in Washington DC would have to be shut down the same as in Manhattan. Or the same as it would have to be shut down on whatever rural roads in Texas Mr Bush traveled (where it might possibly be more difficult for the locals to find an alternative route?).

CS, as you know, I'm happy to see the GOP hyperventilating 24/7. Let's check back in a week and see how the public saw this. Bet there's no general outrage over the Obama's night out, but some head shaking about the GOP's non-stop posturing against them. Hell, they can't even go out without it being flamed by the angry white men.

There is an obvious difference between encouraging average citizens to go out and spend money and the president doing it himself. When you and I go out we don't increase the deficit.

As I said in the other thread this isn't a big deal, but there is an appearance that the president himself is not participating in the shared sacrifice.

GD- largely I think the nonpolitically minded public judges based on how their lives are going, and how they perceive the adminstration's policies are affecting them. For quite a while, I heard the left hyperventilating about Bush even as he enjoyed high approval ratings. The criticisms didn't reach a wider audience until after it became clear that the Iraq War was a disaster and other policies were failing.

So we will indeed see how the public reacts, but not in a weeks time- rather, it will be a cumulative reaction to the symbolic stuff which often mirrors the reaction to the more substantive stuff.

dagoat, not spending now is NOT 'sharing sacrifice'. We're not asking Americans to sacrifice their nights out. I am sensitive to the fact that money is tight, but that's exactly the wrong message now. As for 'increasing the deficit' I think that's pretty silly, but I'll entertain some actual numbers. Show me that the difference between a night out in DC and a night out in NYC is a big deal. Or are you really advocating that they just stay home? Then you can weigh in on how Mayors and Governors will like the idea that killing tourism is a plus for the economy. Cmon, guys, this is trivial and the fact that we're even debating it here at this time in history is pretty amazing.

Show me that the difference between a night out in DC and a night out in NYC is a big deal

Now that's just silly- it's quite easy to point to the major difference, three jets. That was actually part of the extravagance- they flew the press corp there on the taxpayer's dime.

However, when we go out we take our own car, which we pay for. We pay for the gas, the insurance and everything else. Nobody shuts down several blocks of mid-town Manhattan so that we may pass by unmolested, safe and on schedule. We do not ask others to foot the bill for two plane loads of my assistants, co-workers and aides who need to follow my every step, not to mention a bunch of photogs and reporters.

Seriously Jazz? I mean, come on! You aren't the President of the United States. Like it or not, that's just how the guy in the office, whichever guy it may be, is going to roll. And I doubt there is much he can do about the security or the press, and as for the assistants, well, something might come up, and think how much people would be howling if Obama was out of touch and incapable of responding to some major crisis? Your date nights, like most of ours, are private affairs. The president doesn't have that luxury.

And as CStanly noted, there is a cumulative effect to these things. I don't recall Bush's vacation time becoming a major issue before 2004, helped in part I'm guessing by Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but also because by that point it was becoming increasingly clear that he was outstripping all his predecessors in time off, and his pace never let up during his second term.

For Obama, one night or weekend out on the town with the wife is a sweet and romantic gesture, and its cost forgivable. If he starts doing it every month, it becomes wasteful, extravagant, and annoying. To complain about it at this point makes the critics look about as heartless as they did when they bitched about the cost of Obama traveling to Hawaii to visit his grandmother on her deathbed during the campaign. By itself, it is a non-issue, and trying to make it into one makes the people doing so look petty. In a year or two, it may be the foundation for a legitimate criticism based on numerous examples, assuming there are still some opposition voices who haven't wasted the opportunity by becoming the party the cries wolf all too often.

Snarky comment edited. All our lawmakers spend public money on travel. Legislators go home every weekend. Obama does not. We've never made a huge deal out of this and I just don't really see it as more than a drop in the ocean. If we're talking about atmospherics, which seems to be the case, or as Jazz put it, "optics," seriously, don't we have some more important issues to deal with?

We can find numerous examples from both parties of trips, big overseas trips, that were much more wasteful and equally unnecessary from a national priorities standpoint. I don't think this is an important "investigation". Do you?

GD, given that we are under a huge deficit do you think Obama should make any personal sacrifices and if so what should the nature of the sacrifices be?

DaGoat, I don't think the travel budget for our CIC is much of a factor in our deficit. As I noted above, all our legislators travel too. Should they stay in Washington for the weekends as a "personal sacrifice"? They could go bowling in the White House basement (and easily beat the snot out of Obama at bowling, apparently).

I guess we could look at travel expenses by party, by position, by some metric of 'national value' or something. Would that be helpful?

It's definitely symbolism, not a substantive percentage of deficit, GD. So, to answer DaGoat's question I presume that would be a no from you, that you don't think the president should lead by example of frugality in lean times?

I mean, I didn't necessarily agree with Bush's critics that he should stop playing golf during the war, but he did so and I think he said it occurred to him that he wouldn't want a family member of a deceased soldier to turn on the TV and see him having a good time. Wouldn't the same concern apply today to families who are suffering from the economy? It just does seem a bit like the Obama's ought to be careful not to emulate JFK's Camelot glamour days too much in times of dire straits for most people sitting around watching him on TV.

As I noted above, all our legislators travel too. Should they stay in Washington for the weekends as a "personal sacrifice"?

Cutting back on their travel would seem reasonable.

Fox News/ GOP TV is all attack Obama, all the time.

Well, we just disagree. I think it's a splendid example for the president to take his wife out on a date, and to do so in public. I plan to take my wife out too, and spend on her extravagantly. We're in a difficult time financially, but I really don't think a message of austerity is helpful. You apparently disagree.

BTW, Bush's presidential travel budget, while he was running record deficits, was 100,000 (which is pretty silly). The actual estimate was $1 billion a year. (1million % over budget) He didn't reduce travel when the economy started tanking. He increased it. I never made a big deal about it, and would not do so now.

BTW 2. Christian terrorists just killed an abortion doctor walking into his church. He was 'targeted' by Bill O'Reilley in 2006. While we're arguing about whether it's appropriate for the president to treat his wife to a night on the town. I'm outta here.

I saw that story too, GD, and was checking in here to see if any of the bloggers had picked up on it.

Sickening. I felt that the man's actions were heinous and I believed the recent case against him had been wrongly decided, but his murder is equally unjustifiable.

Some people just need to get a grip. Where ever Obama (or any other president goes) there will be massive security. The only way around it is for the American people to not elect a president.

I never saw much criticism (though there was some) for Bush taking all the vacation days he did.... Spending some 977 days on vacation, though some of it was working.... though there is also an awful lot of planning to do. You'd never have thought that he was starting and fighting two wars, the economy was heading south (officially the recession began in Dec. 2007), etc. When Bush came into office there was a budget surplus which he immediately turned around and spent. And he never stopped spending....

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16/politic...

As far as Bush giving up golf to show solidarity with the troops... that's a laugh too. Even after his "official" give-up date Bush still played golf.

From the below link there's this, "He's biked, run, worked out, met with members of athletic teams, thrown out first pitches, dismissed the importance of finding Osama Bin Laden, opposed expanding the GI Bill, but our troops and country can go to sleep happily assured that their Commander In Chief is not dissing their sweat and sacrifice, blood and tears by playing any of that dastardly golf stuff."

http://busharchive.froomkin.com/BL2008051401929...

So yeah, Bush gave up golf, but he found plenty of other ways to entertain himself. Quite frankly I don't really care if he wanted to play golf... He should relax once in a while. But it's absurd for him to say that he's sharing in the sacrifice of the war by giving up golf. As if he can equate that with the thousands of soldiers he sent to war who have died. And then to just be more idiotic, to replace the time he was on the golf course with other activities. Lots of people love to say that Bush gave up golf to show his sacrifice, but then don't realize he had lots of entertainment options which he indulged in.... That's like someone impressing their doctor by telling him that they gave up ice cream in an effort to control diabetes, but replaced it by eating lots of cookies and fudge.

Two things that I noticed over the years Bush was president, but I never saw anyone say anything: first, Bush loved to go mountain biking (I don't have a problem with that) but the trails were really rugged and some of his own security team would have accidents, break bones, etc. Why does the president get to put his own interests ahead of everyone else's especially when they costs the taxpayers more money? If the Republicans and others are going to whine about Obama taking a few hours off, then they should also complain about the costs and actual physical harm the former president's recreational time caused others. I heard no complaints about even the costs to the taxpayer for every mountain biking excursion that Bush did... and he did a whole lot.

Secondly (and I never heard much about this either), the former president spent a lot of time all over the country at fundraisers of Republicans.

For such events the Republicans would typically pick up such expenses. However they got around having to pick up Bush's expenses by having Bush make public appearances so he could be in that town on government business. Since Bush was there for the government, he got to charge his trip to the government (and the taxpayers). And we all know that Bush's "public appearances" were in name only. The audiences were thoroughly vetted and were staunch Republicans. In other words Bush charged the taxpayers for the costs of his fundraising trips for his fellow Republicans by having a "public" appearance (but only open to the GOP) in the same towns that the fundraising events were held in.

Personally I think the RNC should reimburse the government (and taxpayers) for these fundraising events, "public" appearances with GOP faithful, Bush's security detail, travel and any other related expenses. This should not be an issue for the RNC because they tell us all the time that they are the party of "haves and have-mores", the party of personal responsibility, the party of fiscal responsibility, the party of lower spending and fewer taxes. I think the RNC can show its commitment to its core principles by taking responsibility for the costs of Bush's fundraising trips and reimbursing the taxpayer for all these trips by Bush.

But I forget... we're talking about Republicans whose core principles can't be compromised under any circumstance, even if it means not accepting federal money for unemployed. Unless of course compromising their principles involves charging the taxpayer, sticking it to the other party, scoring political points or if it's something they can get away with without being caught- then it's fine to compromise principles.

So you're all admitting you're hypocrites on climate change.
Good.

So Stockboy, can we count on you to ask the DNC to pick up travel expenses every time Obama attends a fundraiser? He's already started, you know.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243502639525...

Yes, the Dems and Obama's campaign should pick up the tab for all expenses, including his Secret Security detail if he does the same thing Bush does... which is go to a fundraiser, and then to a "public" event that's only open to Dems in order to justify the expense to the taxpayers.

If he goes to fundraisers and then goes to a public event, which is truly public, then no. The Dems should not pay for Obama's public appearances. As president we expect him to travel to meet with us.

But the bigger point is that Bush charged the taxpayers for partisan events and no one made much of a fuss over his expenses to the taxpayer.

The article, by the way, doesn't say who picked up his travel costs. Naturally when he was in Indiana at the commencement ceremony he was invited to attend as president. That was not a campaign event, nor did they keep Republicans out. In fact considering the controversy around it you would have thought he was going into the hornet's nest. So for the fundraising appearances around that the Dems would not have to pick up the tab.

If Obama did not have any public events in Beverly Hills, and only attended a fundraising event, then the Dems should pay for that.

You leave a convenient loophole though because obviously the way this is done is that the campaign events are coordinated with other events that are sometimes legit and sometimes contrived. You can always claim that Bush's travel schedule was contrived to give cover for the expenses to be paid out of the normal travel budget (with tab payed by taxpayers) while you can then say that Obama's were ordinary presidential travel that he would have done anyway.

And besides, even when airtravel and such is covered by the normal trip, there are additional security costs of the POTUS going to a second event. I don't know if those costs are typically picked up by the campaigns or the political parties, but they should be.

I would like to point out the logical fallacies continuously used throughout this particular debate.

First I will speak to the original blog post:

"First, the only Republican criticism cited comes from the RNC." - How disappointing that the first argument against the criticism towards Obama's date night is an argument directed at the source or an ad hominem attack. The fact that the RNC is the "only" Republican critic does not negate the validity of their criticism.

"Second, are the Obamas not allowed to do anything normal? Are they not allowed to enjoy themselves?... the Obamas should submit to a life of monastic deprivation and denial." - The second argument is also a logical fallacy. This is called a strawman, folks. No one criticizing the NYC trip is suggesting that the Obamas quit acting normal, are not allowed to enjoy themselves or should live a life of monastic deprivation and denial. He is arguing against non-existent criticism.

The second fallacy in this statement is non sequitur. Because the RNC thinks Obama's NYC trip was excessive, it does not follow that the RNC thinks the Obama's can't do anything normal, or enjoy themselves.

Also, I question his idea of "normal." In my and my fellow employees,' friends,' and families,' experience, taking a flight to NYC to have dinner and a show for a "date night" is well beyond the realm of normality.

"Third, where was the RNC — and where was Fox News — when Bush took time off to golf, or clear brush, after 9/11? Was that not a time of crisis?" - A fine example of a red herring. Because the RNC and/or Fox News failed to mention Bush's time off does not prove that their criticism of Obama's NYC trip is inaccurate.

"Fourth, what’s wrong with going to see a show in New York? The Fox News article lists shows the Obamas could have seen in Washington. But so what? Are they only allowed to enjoy themselves, only allowed to seek out entertainment, inside the Beltway?" - Another strawman. Because the RNC says the Obamas could have dinner and see a show in DC rather than spending a large amount of money flying to NYC solely for dinner and a show does not mean they think the Obamas should only "seek out entertainment, inside the Beltway." It means they could have spent less by having their date night in DC.

This is also a non sequitur. Just because critics suggested that Obama should have stayed in DC on this occasion, it does not follow that they suggest Obama should always stay in DC for entertainment.

"Taking a night off (not that he’s ever really off the job) to spend some quality time with Michelle, and to relax, is probably just what he needed. - Again, strawman. Because the RNC says Obama spent too much going to NYC for a date night does not mean they think the Obamas should not take a night off, relax and enjoy quality time.

"And what? Republicans in Washington are avoiding anything resembling entertainment at the moment? While Obama was in New York, they were all reading policy papers and thinking about the state of the economy?" - This fallacy is called Tu quoque or "they did it so it's okay." Because Republicans are not avoiding entertainment themselves does not mean that the Obama NYC trip was a necessary expense.

I know this is an opinion piece, but true logical opinions are in small supply on both sides of the aisle these days, to the great detriment of honest political debate.

GreenDreams -

“BTW 2. Christian terrorists just killed an abortion doctor walking into his church. He was 'targeted' by Bill O'Reilley in 2006. While we're arguing about whether it's appropriate for the president to treat his wife to a night on the town. I'm outta here.”

I admit I’m new here and I’m not familiar with your sense of humor/sarcasm but this statement makes me wonder what your answer to the following would be.

To conflate Christians with Scott Roeder, as the statement “Christian terrorists” undoubtedly does, in the case of Dr. Tiller’s murder is the same as conflating Islamists with Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad in the case of the Little Rock army recruitment shooting.

Do you agree?