With all that is going on in the world, Haiti, here at home, around the world, Obama can find time to FLY (wonder what that cost) to Massachusetts to help bolster the hopes of the woman who wants to replace Ted Kennedy.
It is ironic, in a way, that if she is defeated, the pending vote could jeopardize the health-care reform vote. Socialized medicine has been uppermost on the Kennedy agenda for many years.
Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the nation.
Health-care reform is at stake. A victory for Scott Brown would deprive the Democrats of the 60 votes they need to push their brand of health-care reform through the Senate without any Republican support. That would be a huge defeat for President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Democrat-only legislative power would come to an end. If Senate Democrats were to lose in Massachusetts, they'd lose their tenuous 60-seat majority needed to push forward legislation without bipartisan support. That means that moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine would instantly become two of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill. One way or another, the Obama agenda would have to be retooled or scaled back.
WHY do we taxpayers have to pay for "political" trips made by the president?
Whatever happened to "Not paid for at taxpayers expense."
Try to get away with that at any other level and see what happens. Disclaimers seem to mean very little when you get to the "upper level" of politics.
WE just paid, probably a million or so, for Obama to fly to Massachusetts, to make a political speech for a candidate running for office.
DISCLAIMER;
Individuals and Other Persons
A disclaimer must appear on any "electioneering communication" and on any public communication by any person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or solicits funds in connection with a federal election.
If that trip wasn't political, I don't know what was!!!
