Is the sitting POTUS supposed to be endorsing a candidate and campaigning on there behalf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president is the head of his party. Of COURSE he should endorse a candidate from his party. If he is a popular president, he should campain for the candidate strongly. This is the person who will succeed him and carry on his legacy. Of COURSE he will care who that person is, and will have an opinion, and should share it publicly and often.

It would be shocking for a president, or a former president, to fail to endorse a candidate from his own party, as well. That would be strong criticism of the candidate. Especially when you consider that past presidents are those who best know what kind of intelligence, stamina, and temperament are needed for the job.

IMHO, once a person is elected President of the US, he/she should be president of all the people and not get involved with an election.

Nope! Presidents are political creatures. That's our system in this country, and always has been. If you don't like it, leave.

No one said anything about leaving, except you.

Yep. You just said presidents shouldn't be able to participate in our democracy. So if You hate our system, be our guest and leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things bother me about this.

1. Are the taxpayers paying for Obama to fly all over the place in airfare 1?

The long-standing policy is that the President or the campaign pays the cost of first class air tickets for all non-government travel. While the taxpayer still pays the bill for flying Air Force One around, any other way would just be unfair, because the President could not pay for one flight on Air Force One out of his own pocket, and it's not like he has any other way to travel.

2. Us normal people only get 2 weeks vacation per year, are we paying the president's salary while he travels around and campaigns for Hillary or does he have to take leave without pay or is he using part of his 2 weeks vacation?

The President has "vacations" but he works every day even on vacation. He gets daily intelligence briefs, meets with staff on urgent matters and takes important phone calls no matter where he is. And unlike most of us, he is on-call 24/7. He runs an organization of 2 million people for tiny fraction of a corporate CEO salary.

Weird post and weird response.

Well either it's a good explanation, or George Bush's 533 vacation days means that he owes the American people 453 days of work for unapproved leave. That's two full work years for anyone counting. Then again, perhaps that explains why everything was cratering by the end of his presidency.

One thought that comes to mind is that different presidents approach vacations differently. Both W and Obama don't appear to be workaholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things bother me about this.

1. Are the taxpayers paying for Obama to fly all over the place in airfare 1?

The long-standing policy is that the President or the campaign pays the cost of first class air tickets for all non-government travel. While the taxpayer still pays the bill for flying Air Force One around, any other way would just be unfair, because the President could not pay for one flight on Air Force One out of his own pocket, and it's not like he has any other way to travel.

2. Us normal people only get 2 weeks vacation per year, are we paying the president's salary while he travels around and campaigns for Hillary or does he have to take leave without pay or is he using part of his 2 weeks vacation?

The President has "vacations" but he works every day even on vacation. He gets daily intelligence briefs, meets with staff on urgent matters and takes important phone calls no matter where he is. And unlike most of us, he is on-call 24/7. He runs an organization of 2 million people for tiny fraction of a corporate CEO salary.

Weird post and weird response.

Well either it's a good explanation, or George Bush's 533 vacation days means that he owes the American people 453 days of work for unapproved leave. That's two full work years for anyone counting. Then again, perhaps that explains why everything was cratering by the end of his presidency.

One thought that comes to mind is that different presidents approach vacations differently. Both W and Obama don't appear to be workaholics.

On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer than George W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

Not included in this data are trips to the Camp David presidential retreat in western Maryland, which Knoller doesn’t count as "vacation." Knoller told Yahoo! News that, through Aug. 12, 2014, Obama had made 33 visits to Camp David for all or part of 84 days, while Bush had been there 108 times for all or part of 341 days.

[Anonymous]

A sitting president can do anything he/she wants to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things bother me about this.

1. Are the taxpayers paying for Obama to fly all over the place in airfare 1?

The long-standing policy is that the President or the campaign pays the cost of first class air tickets for all non-government travel. While the taxpayer still pays the bill for flying Air Force One around, any other way would just be unfair, because the President could not pay for one flight on Air Force One out of his own pocket, and it's not like he has any other way to travel.

2. Us normal people only get 2 weeks vacation per year, are we paying the president's salary while he travels around and campaigns for Hillary or does he have to take leave without pay or is he using part of his 2 weeks vacation?

The President has "vacations" but he works every day even on vacation. He gets daily intelligence briefs, meets with staff on urgent matters and takes important phone calls no matter where he is. And unlike most of us, he is on-call 24/7. He runs an organization of 2 million people for tiny fraction of a corporate CEO salary.

Weird post and weird response.

Well either it's a good explanation, or George Bush's 533 vacation days means that he owes the American people 453 days of work for unapproved leave. That's two full work years for anyone counting. Then again, perhaps that explains why everything was cratering by the end of his presidency.

One thought that comes to mind is that different presidents approach vacations differently. Both W and Obama don't appear to be workaholics.

On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer than George W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

Not included in this data are trips to the Camp David presidential retreat in western Maryland, which Knoller doesn’t count as "vacation." Knoller told Yahoo! News that, through Aug. 12, 2014, Obama had made 33 visits to Camp David for all or part of 84 days, while Bush had been there 108 times for all or part of 341 days.

Interesting
Obama: 125+84=209
Bush: 407+341=748

209/8=26 days a year. Obama took off roughly 5 weeks a year.

748/8=94 days a year. Bush took off 19 weeks of vacation a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here-I am a newly arrived Immigrant from Europe-never really followed US politics. You guys are so rude!

Let me give you some advice, OP: you don't learn things from an anonymous forum on politics. Get a civics or history book. Or better yet, take a class (if you want to become a citizen this will help you).

Signed, married an immigrant who knows more about the constitution and U.S. democracy than most people I know, because he comes from a country without a democracy and wanted to LEARN (not just stoke hatred, as it appears you are doing?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things bother me about this.

1. Are the taxpayers paying for Obama to fly all over the place in airfare 1?

The long-standing policy is that the President or the campaign pays the cost of first class air tickets for all non-government travel. While the taxpayer still pays the bill for flying Air Force One around, any other way would just be unfair, because the President could not pay for one flight on Air Force One out of his own pocket, and it's not like he has any other way to travel.

2. Us normal people only get 2 weeks vacation per year, are we paying the president's salary while he travels around and campaigns for Hillary or does he have to take leave without pay or is he using part of his 2 weeks vacation?

The President has "vacations" but he works every day even on vacation. He gets daily intelligence briefs, meets with staff on urgent matters and takes important phone calls no matter where he is. And unlike most of us, he is on-call 24/7. He runs an organization of 2 million people for tiny fraction of a corporate CEO salary.

Weird post and weird response.

Well either it's a good explanation, or George Bush's 533 vacation days means that he owes the American people 453 days of work for unapproved leave. That's two full work years for anyone counting. Then again, perhaps that explains why everything was cratering by the end of his presidency.

One thought that comes to mind is that different presidents approach vacations differently. Both W and Obama don't appear to be workaholics.

On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer than George W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

Not included in this data are trips to the Camp David presidential retreat in western Maryland, which Knoller doesn’t count as "vacation." Knoller told Yahoo! News that, through Aug. 12, 2014, Obama had made 33 visits to Camp David for all or part of 84 days, while Bush had been there 108 times for all or part of 341 days.

Interesting
Obama: 125+84=209
Bush: 407+341=748

209/8=26 days a year. Obama took off roughly 5 weeks a year.

748/8=94 days a year. Bush took off 19 weeks of vacation a year.

Yikes. Although to be fair, I doubt a president is ever truly on "vacation." But it's no secret the Bushes loathed DC and escaped as often as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here-I am a newly arrived Immigrant from Europe-never really followed US politics. You guys are so rude!

Wow, you are pretty good though with the lingo! You called the President "POTUS" which isn't something a lot of foreigners who don't follow US politics would know. And, good job spelling "their" the way half of the US does! (-:

Yep. And you know what? If you want to javbe a conversation about US politics, do some reading first. Buy a basic US govt textbook. Middle school level.

Oh my God, please STOP embarrassing the rest of Americans who are thoughtful and courteous. You are a bully and a humiliation. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gore didn't want Bill on the road for him and no one wanted GWB's endorsement, so the last time it really happened was in 1988 when Reagan endorsed Papa Bush.

Did he and Nancy actively campaign for Bush?

I don't recall specifically, but the expectation was certainly that he would do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/12/us/reagan-endorses-bush-as-successor.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most outgoing 2-term presidents campaign for their party's new nominee.

Actually, this is not true in recent history. I was listening to a political podcast about how it is actually a bit uncommon. George W. Bush was obviously unpopular towards the end of his term, and was not active in campaigning. I will leave the same was true about Clinton, Although I was still young towards the end of his presidency. While it is permitted, it has not been very common

Recent years are an aberration from the norm. Gore apparently pushed Clinton away because of the sex scandals, and Republicans wanted to distance themselves from Bush II. But before then, it was expected that presidents would campaign for their party's presidential nominee, just as they campaign on behalf of their party's Congressional representatives, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A sitting president can do anything he/she wants to do.

Hillary will be busy defending herself from her endless scandals. She'll have no choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It disturbs me to see how Obama has so much of a vested interest in endorsing Hillary. Shouldn't he remain neutral?

If you ask Harry Reid, it's a violation of Hatch Act.

You're very ignorant. The Hatch Act doesn't apply to Congress or the president, vice president, and certain other high-level officials in the Executive Branch. It DOES apply to Comey.

Which I how Paul Ryan ended up on CNN.com (the Clinton news network!) shilling for Trump. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/05/opinions/choice-facing-america-ryan/index.html

[Anonymous]

Here is what makes Obama campaigning for Hillary seem unusual. All of the prior living Republican presidents or presidential nominees (except McCain, kinda, sorta, tepidly, and briefly, after being told he was a coward because he had been captured) have not only refused to campaign for Trump. They've gone on record as saying they refuse to vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most outgoing 2-term presidents campaign for their party's new nominee.

Actually, this is not true in recent history. I was listening to a political podcast about how it is actually a bit uncommon. George W. Bush was obviously unpopular towards the end of his term, and was not active in campaigning. I will leave the same was true about Clinton, Although I was still young towards the end of his presidency. While it is permitted, it has not been very common

Bill Clinton's job approval ratings were in the 60s while Gore was campaigning. It's not that he wasn't popular, Gore asked him not to campaign for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A sitting president can do anything he/she wants to do.

And Hillary will do just that. Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.