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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. (10,000% 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.

That would seem reasonable.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.