Photobombing The NASA Authorization Act
President Trump’s enemies list, Politico
“White House officials have taken notice of [Rep. Martha] Roby’s efforts to make amends and view her efforts with some skepticism. While in the Oval Office for a NASA bill signing in March, Roby sidled up next to Trump – putting her front-and-center for the photo-op. Behind her push for the president’s approval is a stark political reality: She is facing a fierce primary challenge from a Trump stalwart who has turned her past opposition to the president into the focal point of his campaign.”
Keith’s note: Guess which person is Rep. Roby. Could that neon yellow shirt be any brighter?
Does this wording in the article, “Trump has spoken of spending $10 million of his own money to defeat an incumbent senator” seem extremely wrong or scary to anyone else for a sitting President to even be talking about much less actively pursuing?
Yes.
It seems like he usually doesn’t follow through when he talks about spending his own money. However he also is fairly consistent with patronage and revenge (aka “loyalty”). So that one might be a tossup.
Not as scary as using the IRS to slow your opponents down.
I can think of worse things. Presidents can, have and will campaign for congressmen and governors they like (or against those they don’t.) That’s using their official position as President, and no one objects to that. In comparison, spending his own money on a campaign is his own business. It’s no worse than any other billionaire making campaign donations and buying an election.
Maybe we should object, if public funds are involved in the appearance.
As voters, we probably should object. But I don’t see how we could legislate against Presidents campaigning for or against their friends or enemies. It’s too vague. If a candidate is running on a platform in favor of X, and the President gives a speech in favor of X, is that campaigning or just doing his job? Even if he gave the speech in the relevant state, would that prove anything? I like legislation to have clear, enforceable meaning.
When election results are disappointing it is easy to look at the system in an attempt to explain the outcome.
Free speech is a sometimes difficult concept, particularly when the words or actions are inimitable to one’s sensibilities; and when that’s the case, action that would in some way temper the success of a disagreeable candidate is quite tempting.
The case of campaign financing is at least in part a question of free speech. In this I find myself agreeing largely with the Supremes, odious as the result might be: that money and speech have some sort of equality or fungibility.
Even so, as I type these comments I see a sort of creepiness or unease around the issue of money in campaigns, and I think it has to do with the inherent unbalance that a very rich person brings to an election. Maybe that’s what bothers me. Rich people upset the notion that everyone has a fair shot, which is demonstrably not the case.
Is it proper to continually assert that “you, young lady, could grow up to be President!” Not really. To a large extent that’s because money indirectly buys votes (and it’s because the airwaves aren’t owned by us anymore).
{laughs}
Buzz looks at him like he thinks trump needs to take his meds.
Buzz is pretty much untouchable.
Buzz is a smart man. He earned a b.s. in mechanical engineering from West Point.
Don’t forget his PhD in Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT.
You’re right, I missed that. Again, smart guy.
Yep. He’s smart and educated, he’s genuinely admirable, and from time to time a bit of a horse’s ass.
But he’s _our_ horse’s ass.
Do these political types really plan a wardrobe based on a planned photo op?
It’s a serious question. Is that the case?
Yes. Modern politics is largely about image and appearance. Good politics pay as much attention to the way they dress at public events as movie stars do. Think of it in a different way. If a Republican went in camera wearing a blue tie, or a red and blue striped one, would some reporter (desperate for copy) write something about it? Is it intended to be a subtle hint that a “red” politician might be more centralist or willing to work with “blue” politicians? Of course that’s nonsense, but some reporter, somewhere, would put it in a story. So, yes, politicians do think about their wardrobe and how it will look at a photo op.
I suppose.
Let’s see. This morning I need to go see a client; on the way back after lunch, I’ll stop at the beach, meet my wife, and go for a dip. So, I brought my swimsuit.
That’s the same thing, right? 🙂