Leadership, Obama style.
Just in case we need help spending any extra money somehow left in our wallet, Obama wants to show us how easy it is to alleviate that problem:
Obama says he doesn’t get the “massive checks” that the other side does.
No wonder the guy is leading us off the fiscal cliff — No comprende “massive”.
Obama’s recent San Antonio fundraiser at the home of Mikal Watts was priced at $35,800 per couple. To most of us, this represents the opportunity cost price of a 2011 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sport with a Sahara Tan Clear Coat Exterior and promises only of the great outdoors:
The President’s April fundraising trip to San Diego was its own form of political dealer sticker shock, allowing entry only to those willing to hand over $35,800 PER PERSON. For those who prefer more luxury transportation, this amount would buy you and your spouse a 2012 BMW 740i, considered by many to be the perfect marriage of comfort and high performance.
Speaking of high performance, the President fell “a little flat” at his recent Denver fundraiser. Maybe the greatest orator in modern times just can’t bring it for the lame folks who will only cough up $500 to tell them what they want to hear.
Mr. Obama perked up and became his Churchill bust returning, big-government, debt happy self, though, when hanging out with Anna Wintour and Sarah Jessica Parker at Parker’s New York City apartment. It’s amazing what $40,000 will do for the spirits – especially if applied towards a brand new 2012 Lexus RX 350.
The Lexus gets 4.5 stars from consumers and most importantly, it will get you where you want to go.
Alternatively, you could drop the same cash for an hour with an increasingly unpopular celebrity-wanna-be who likes to rub his knobby elbows with stars. A person who makes a living pretending to be something he is not likes to compare notes with someone in the same kind of job — perfectly understandable.
Which brings me back to Obama’s lack of understanding about what constitutes a massive check. It wasn’t too long ago that Mr. Obama criticized high dollar fundraisers like the ones he attends now as selling access:
“You got these $10,000-a-plate dinners and Golden Circles Clubs. I think when the average voter looks at that, they rightly feel they’re locked out of the process. They can’t attend a $10,000 breakfast and they know that those who can are going to get the kind of access they can’t imagine.”
Wow that’s a steal. Only $10,000 for access before Obama came into office!
The same amount of money today will land you in the used car market and that can be a risky proposition. Still, much less riskier than betting on a Used President whose carfax history puts him in the lemon category.
August 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm
C’mon Sara – you know that candidates from both parties engage in high-stakes fundraising. This has all the news value of “Sun rises in East.”
Sometimes I wonder, though – Should we discard our current election process and turn the whole thing over to the PGA? It should be pretty straightforward. Anyone who wants to can participate in a number of sanctioned fundraising events, and whoever raises the most money at the end of the events is declared President.
After all, all the campaigns (and most of the “newscasts”) talk incessantly about the money they’ve raised and the money they “need”. Let’s get rid of the snarky stuff about gaffes and the bumper-sticker “discussion of issues” and concentrate on what’s really important.
There could be fifty events – one per state – spread over about a year at one state per week. For any one state, there would only be one week when the campaign could advertise, which would help control costs and would turn down the noise level. The candidates would actually get out and see some of the country, and having them away from Washington has benefits of its own.
Pundits who don’t seem to be able to manage sports metaphors would be replaced by sportscasters, who do.
Actual voting wouldn’t be required, in keeping with the Supreme Court’s ruling that money is a form of speech, and thus a form of political expression, as is voting.
August 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm
LOL
Famous politician makes headlines for donating to his own campaign — and you criticize me for reporting on the Sun Rises in the East? Hahahaha.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/241297-obama-donates-to-his-own-campaign
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/us-usa-campaign-obama-donate-idINBRE86U1S020120731
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/31/13057172-obama-donates-5000-to-his-own-campaign?lite
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/obama-donates-to-own-campaign-130633.html
Hit google — there’s more, trust me.
I suppose I should also “report” that Mr. Obama only donated $5,000 to himself – which, given his net worth, would lead one to assume he considers himself a risky investment.
August 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm
You’ve spotted a key difference between Republicans and Democrats. A Democrat will give money to his or her campaign. A Republican will make a loan to the campaign.
August 1, 2012 at 3:10 pm
And you’ve spotted a key difference between Republicans and Democrats, too. Democrats are stingy with their giving altogether, preferring others to give more than what they are willing to give, themselves.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/candidate-romney-more-generous-than-obama-biden/article/1084331
August 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Mr. Romney’s personal charity is admirable, and he is fortunate to be in a position where the sums involved are substantial. I suspect that you and I both know people, on both ends of the political spectrum, who tithe and who have incomes well below that of Mr. Romney. These are the people who show us what charity really is.