Campaigning Question
Cidu Bill on Nov 5th 2009
I’m wondering whether anybody knows… When the President travels to campaign for, say, a gubernatorial candidate, who pays for the Air Force 1 expenses, security for the President, police overtime onsite, etc?
And just for the record, I can’t speak for Virginia, but no matter what you might hear, the New Jersey election was not a referendum on either Obama or the Democratic Party: it was a referendum on Jon Corzine. When New Jerseyans went into the voting booth yesterday, Barack Obama was the last thing on our minds: We were too busy holding our noses as we decided whether the thought of reelecting Jon Corzine was distasteful for us to vote for Chris Christie.
Personally, I voted for Chris Daggett, since in this case voting for the third party candidate wasn’t taking a vote away from any decent candidate. He had me at “I’m not Corzine or Christie.”
As it happens, despite recent polls predicting up to 20% of the vote for Daggett, he ended up with about 5%. Which means, God help us, New Jerseyans got the governor we deserve.
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, Chris Christie, Chris Daggett, Jon Corzine, New Jersey, politics | 20 responses so far
solarrhino Nov 5th 2009 at 01:12 am 1
You can’t speak for Virginia, but you can speak for all of New Jersey?!?
Cidu Bill Nov 5th 2009 at 01:14 am 2
Yes. The whole state. Sometimes I even impress myself.
David N Nov 5th 2009 at 01:24 am 3
Yes, but can you speak TO New Jersey? That would really impress!
The answer to your question is slightly complicated, but campaign trips are funded by the party generally, while regular trips are paid for by the WH. Police overtime is usually paid for by the cities or municipalities involved. Other costs, like who picked up the tab for Bill Clinton’s McDonalds runs in the limo, are probably still classified.
Lihtox Nov 5th 2009 at 02:08 am 4
Looks like Christie is or is going to be under investigation for corruption; maybe y’all can get him to resign in disgrace early next year, and pick someone you like better.
Charlene Nov 5th 2009 at 02:36 am 5
Well, of course he’s under investigation for corruption; he’s just been elected Governor of New Jersey.
Cindi Nov 5th 2009 at 03:14 am 6
CIDU Bill - You hit it right in the head -Feel free to speak for me.
I too voted for Dagget - it was extremely hard enough trying to hold my nose, vote and try to find Daggett’s name buried in the ballot. He might have come away with more than 5% if people didn’t run out of air before they found his name.
Perhaps we can get together with the other 7 or 8 folks who voted for Dagget and push for a referendum to provide oxygen masks for the next election.
Cidu Bill Nov 5th 2009 at 03:27 am 7
My wife and son voted for Daggett as well, Cindi, so I guess by now we’ve identified at least half of Daggett’s vote.
furrykef Nov 5th 2009 at 08:33 am 8
Personally, I voted for Chris Daggett, since in this case voting for the third party candidate wasn’t taking a vote away from any decent candidate. He had me at “I’m not Corzine or Christie.”
I know exactly how you feel. Perhaps this issue wasn’t as serious as the one in New Jersey, but I remember back in the 2004 election, there was so much mudslinging on TV between Tom Coburn and Brad Carson for Senate — they spent much more time bashing each other than talking about themselves — that I got sick of both of them to the point that I voted for one of the third parties without even knowing who it was. (I don’t even recall the candidate’s name.)
Of course, it isn’t a novel idea; some places have an option such as “none of these candidates” which is pretty meaningless but still serves as a handy bucket for protest votes. Too bad that when you remove the pretense of voting for a third candidate, though, it highlights how futile casting such a vote really is at times. Seriously, who pays attention to whether or not you hate both candidates?
This also reminds me of the 2006 election. Like many people, I don’t care about midterm elections so much, or for the position of Lt. Governor, but one candidate held a position so ridiculous, and so contemptible, that I went to the polls anyway for the sole purpose of voting against him. This is a word-for-word quote of the entire ad:
“When Jari Askins was asked about homosexuality, her response was… ‘Tolerant’. Jari Askins: Too liberal for Oklahoma.”
That’s right. Tolerance is too liberal. I can’t see how anybody but a complete homophobe could find that a remotely reasonable position. (Askins won. I like to think that it was specifically because of the sheer ignorance and hate this ad exhibited.)
- Kef
Nicole Nov 5th 2009 at 08:35 am 9
Sometimes you get tired of the same old corruption and you want NEW corruption .. out with Corzine and in with Christie
Marshal Nov 5th 2009 at 08:40 am 10
CIDU Bill,
You will pay the bill. You should receive it in December. Please have
your check in by April 16th.
Carl Nov 5th 2009 at 11:08 am 11
I actually did vote for not a single Democrat (here in New York) specifically because of Obama. Unfortunately he’s proving to be really good at elections, and really uninterested in his ostensible job.
HM Nov 5th 2009 at 11:30 am 12
As a very liberal Democrat living in Virginia I can tell you this election had very little to do with Obama and a heck of a lot to do with *really* bad campaigning. Even my die-hard family was frustrated with Deeds et al.
Willondon Nov 5th 2009 at 01:05 pm 13
Who pays for security of politicians?
Even when a disgraceful U.S. ex-president goes on the talk circuit, it appears a foreign country will spend citizens’ tax on “protection”, instead of doing their Geneva Convention duty and arresting the scoundrel as a war criminal that should be tried (with specific charges, and within a reasonable amount of time, mind you).
Just one report of a scattered menace:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/10/21/sk-bush-saskatoon.html
But I ramble…
Keera Nov 5th 2009 at 01:36 pm 14
Tell me: Is it normal for a president with declining popularity and a lot of problems to tackle to take time out to stump for a _governor_?
paperboy Nov 5th 2009 at 01:56 pm 15
Except for over-time of local law enforcement, I would think security for the president when traveling doesn’t cost extra, since they’re already on the pay-roll. I’d assume there is also already a budget for Air Force 1 use, too.
turquoise cow Nov 5th 2009 at 07:52 pm 16
as a fellow New Jerseyan, I agree. I have no problem whatsoever with the President and a lot of problems with the governor. I also voted for Dagget, mostly because I don’t like Christie, but I’m not thrilled enough with Corzine to vote for him again.
Mark in Boston Nov 5th 2009 at 08:39 pm 17
Once I voted for a third-party candidate, and when the official results were announced in the newspaper there were no votes for that candidate. Hmmmmm….
Joshua Nov 6th 2009 at 04:03 am 18
I could be wrong, but I believe that when the president goes out to do political campaigning, the costs of Air Force One and similar expenses are supposed to be reimbursed by the applicable political committee (the candidate’s committee, the state political party, etc.). If the president splits his time during the trip between official duties and political activity, the political committee pays part of the costs.
However, it appears that in either case, the reimbursement doesn’t come close to the actual costs of operating Air Force One.
chuckers Nov 6th 2009 at 05:36 am 19
Mark,
More than likely, the newspaper was printing projected vote numbers that were available at press time rather than actual numbers that wouldn’t be available for several hours AFTER the paper was due out.
Using projected numbers is how come Florida flip-flopped a dozen times per channel in the infamous 2000 presidential election farce.
Mark in Boston Nov 6th 2009 at 10:11 pm 20
Chuckers,
Small town, weekly newspaper. Official vote count done by Tuesday night. Newspaper printed on Thursday.