Why is Obama flying to Denver to sign the bill? Was he already scheduled to be there today anyway? It seems like a lot of expense in taxpayer money for a photo op. It is not just the cost of AF One, but the cost of sending hundreds of personel, Secret Service, support staff, etc, across the country that makes me wonder.

Also, there must be an environmental impact to all these planes. Since "greenness" is part of the bailout, isn't this counterproductive?

Probably there are good reasons for these costs in money and carbon, I just don't know them.

No important reasons.

1) Escape political climate in DC
2) They're highlighting the alternative energy aspect of the plan, and so they're doing it at a museum with some solar panel project, and in a state that has a growing green energy industry.
3) It's an important state politically

(02-17-2009 11:53 AM)At Ease Wrote:  No important reasons.

That's what I thought, too.

buuuurp... Why not? /Belushi

(02-17-2009 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  buuuurp... Why not? /Belushi

Why not...the Oval Office? Saves money and environment, is away from nasty political climate, important area politically, and is in the middle of a growing green industry area (green as in $$$).

Just seems a bit hypocritical. Not a big thing, but it seems like a typical thing. Someone tell the automakers it is OK to use their planes now.

Good point OO, I was merely trying to be funny. I can't think of one GOOD reason... just like why his Delta Chi pledge name was Pinto

By that logic, why should the president go anywhere ever? Surely the white house has secure teleconferencing technology. Presidents often travel the country and make speeches.

(Plus all that advance team work is creating jobs )

(02-19-2009 04:09 PM)texd Wrote:  By that logic, why should the president go anywhere ever? Surely the white house has secure teleconferencing technology. Presidents often travel the country and make speeches.

(Plus all that advance team work is creating jobs )

Good question, Tex. Anyone have an answer?

Here's mine: Some things need to be done at other locations. Some don't need to be. It appears to me this was just for a photo op. I don't think that is a good use of our $$$ and other resources. Would it have been a good use of national resources for President Bush (or any other president) to travel to Denver (or any other place) just to sign a bill? IMO, no. Not unless there was some overriding interest to do so.

Makes as much sense to drive him to Baltimore to use the bathroom when he has one down the hall.

I think that an Administration that is promoting "green" solutions should be more judicious about filling the skies with airliners.

Can't argue with the spending, though. Presumably the trip to Denver savedorcreated dozens of jobs at the Denver airport. Maybe more. No way to tell. I think the next bill should be signed in Houston. Then Billings, Montana. Then Seattle. Let's keep those planes and personnel flying, that will surely benefit us all.

Congressman George Miller, left, watches as President Bush signs the historic No Child Left Behind education bill into law. As one of the four co-authors of the bill, Miller was invited by President Bush to join him for the signing ceremony in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002. With him are Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Education Secretary Rod Paige, and Representative John Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the Education committee. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the four co-author is standing behind Chairman Boehner.

[Apparently there were no children being left behind in Washington DC?]

(02-20-2009 01:06 AM)texd Wrote:  
Congressman George Miller, left, watches as President Bush signs the historic No Child Left Behind education bill into law. As one of the four co-authors of the bill, Miller was invited by President Bush to join him for the signing ceremony in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002. With him are Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Education Secretary Rod Paige, and Representative John Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the Education committee. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the four co-author is standing behind Chairman Boehner.

[Apparently there were no children being left behind in Washington DC?]

If your point is that GWB was as wasteful and self-aggrandizing as Obama (or vice-versa), I agree. Seems to be a failing of politicians in general.

If your point is that it is OK for Obama because GWB did it also, I disagree. Two wrongs, etc.

My point is that it's not uncommon.

(02-20-2009 01:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 01:06 AM)texd Wrote:  
Congressman George Miller, left, watches as President Bush signs the historic No Child Left Behind education bill into law. As one of the four co-authors of the bill, Miller was invited by President Bush to join him for the signing ceremony in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002. With him are Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Education Secretary Rod Paige, and Representative John Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the Education committee. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the four co-author is standing behind Chairman Boehner.

[Apparently there were no children being left behind in Washington DC?]

If your point is that GWB was as wasteful and self-aggrandizing as Obama (or vice-versa), I agree. Seems to be a failing of politicians in general.

If your point is that it is OK for Obama because GWB did it also, I disagree. Two wrongs, etc.

+1, and this continues to be the answer that people give when Obama is faced with questions... well, GWB did it... I thought that's part of the reason he had a 23% apvl rating. But the fact is, Presidents travel for all sorts of reasons.... I DO find it hypocritical that we chastised the Auto executives for the manner in which they traveled to a meeting they were required to be at, and don't seem to mind when the President, or as in the photo above, half a dozen Senators from other states fly places (likely in a manner similar to the way the Auto execs went to Washington) for something they really didn't need to be present for.

Rather than chastise Obama, I'd more say he missed a golden opportunity to lead by example of a government tightening its belt while asking Americans to do the same. Back in the oil crisis of the early 70's, Carter was frequently on TV talking about lowering thermostats and turning off lights. The implication certainly was that he was doing it himself... though I really don't know if the government did.

(02-20-2009 09:49 AM)texd Wrote:  My point is that it's not uncommon.

"everybody's doing it"

I used to hear this from my kids when they were little. I didn't buy it then, either.

This is change? Sounds like more of the same.

No, not quite the same. BHO is pushing green environmental policies, and yet leaves a carbon footprint bigger than Godzilla's on his way to the photo op. I am surprised that environmentalists are giving this a pass.

At least the spending is consistant with his policies.

That's fair (that just because Bush did it doesn't mean Obama should). Perhaps you guys can suggest somewhere closer to DC that he should be giving a speech on environmental initiatives.

(02-20-2009 10:14 PM)texd Wrote:  That's fair (that just because Bush did it doesn't mean Obama should). Perhaps you guys can suggest somewhere closer to DC that he should be giving a speech on environmental initiatives.

The White House porch.

I was unaware we were encouraging green businesses on the white house porch.

(02-20-2009 11:33 PM)texd Wrote:  I was unaware we were encouraging green businesses on the white house porch.

I was unaware that was the objective. I thought stimulating the economy was the objective. Silly me.

Taking a 747 to Denver to promote green business strikes me as a bit Al Gore-ish. If there are no green businesses closer to Washington than Denver, our green revolution is off to a bad start.

The whole Obama thing has been more about style than substance. Unfortunately, he has reached the point, for the first time in his life, where substance matters. If he can't make the substance happen, he'll be in real trouble. Unfortunately, we'll be in worse trouble.

Then again, we elected him, so we arguably deserve what we get. You probably still think what we will get will be good. I don't.

(02-21-2009 07:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was unaware that was the objective. I thought stimulating the economy was the objective. Silly me.

Taking a 747 to Denver to promote green business strikes me as a bit Al Gore-ish. If there are no green businesses closer to Washington than Denver, our green revolution is off to a bad start.

The whole Obama thing has been more about style than substance. Unfortunately, he has reached the point, for the first time in his life, where substance matters. If he can't make the substance happen, he'll be in real trouble. Unfortunately, we'll be in worse trouble.

Then again, we elected him, so we arguably deserve what we get. You probably still think what we will get will be good. I don't.

Let's be realistic for JUST a sec.

There are over 10,000 commercial airline flights over the U.S. every day (which, by the way, collectively put out a fraction of the carbon emissions of automobiles). A single Air Force One flight will not, by itself, impact the environment one whit. In fact, Obama could fly to an exotic locale every single day and not impact the environment to any noticeable degree.

That's not to say Obama couldn't or shouldn't send a message about the environment by cutting down on unnecessary trips. He could, and maybe he should. (Though I'm not sure discouraging travel would be good for this economy, environmental concerns aside. I suspect tourism-dependent states like Nevada might have something to say about that. Maybe Obama wants to promote green initiatives that support or are neutral to the economic recovery. Reduced tourism is neither.)

But that would be a "style" choice too. What's the best way to send out a message about being green? Cutting back on AF1 flights, or signing a stimulus bill that is purported to support a green economy at a place where they're doing a lot of green projects? Who knows, let's do a focus group.

You might be right, 69/70/75, that cutting out the trips would send a more effective message than flying to Colorado to sign the stimulus bill. But that's not a question of style vs. substance -- that's your style vs. Obama's style.

Obama seems to have adopted the Al Gore style. Run around the country with little regard for one's own carbon footprint, while lecturing everybody else about what they should be doing differently. Do as I say, not as I do. That's kind of the approach to appointing lobbyists to influential positions. It seems to be the approach on a lot of things. Those who disagree with him will point these things out at every opportunity. Those who support him will rationalize them away.

Bottom line is that it looks, at least for now, like the whole Obama administration will come down to the "stimulus" package--it will work, or it won't. He and the democrats have pretty much gone "all in" that it will work; the republicans have pretty much gone "all in" that it won't.

I wish I thought, for the good of the country, that this "stimulus" had a chance of working. I don't.

I suppose the message here is I might as well buy a Hummer, since buying a hybrid won't make one whit of difference. Might as well clear a few more acres and burn a couple of tires, won't make a whit of difference. Of course i am just following the example of my leader, who apparently also thinks that conservation is for other people, not him.

First, let me quibble about the ONE flight. It wasn't just AF1 that made the trip. Hundreds of Secret Service, staff, politicians, and others made the trip, and not all in AF1 - so several planes were used that otherwise would stay on the ground. Plus all the newspeople, their staffs, producers, camerament, make-up artists, secretaries, caffee-bringers, etc., who also came from somewhere else by plane.

And everyone went back a couple of hours later, so times 2.

So maybe it was 8 whits, or 10. For what?

To sign a bill in an area with green projects. what are they? i missed that part. Are they wind turbine manufactures, or insulating companies, or composters, or solar panel installers, or what? Does anyone know them now that would not know them if the signing was held in Washington? Does anyone know them now, period? No fair going to the internet to look some up just to answer the question - the signing was suppossed to get you to do that, right?

Why not fly to T. Boone Pickens' place for the signing? Why not go to West Texas, and sign in the wind farm, with the breeze blowing the papers? What's in Denver that isn't in Maryland? Or Virginia? Or as close to the White House as those Denver-area businesses, whoever they are, are to the signing place in Denver?

There was no neccesity for this, and the cost/benefits in dollars do not support it, and the cost/benefits in carbon do not support it, so the only question is whether the symbolic value was worth it. If it inspired 100,000 more people to buy a hybrid, and 100,000 more to put solar on their house, etc, and if it inspired people to sink millions into the stock of those environmental companies around Denver (who were they, again?), then it could be argued the benefits far outweighed the costs in money and carbon. I think only the most rabid of Obama supporters would try to make that argument, and they could not reasonably make it. I think the only beneficiary of this trip to Denver was Obama, politically. And maybe some Denver hotels, and some people who sell aviation fuel.

yeah, it's a drop in the bucket. But it is a highly symbolic drop. If he doesn't care, why should anyone else?