Should a sitting president campaign for the party

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Sep 16, 2010.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    Not taking sides Republican or Democrat but in general should a sitting president be allowed to campaign for the party. Once they become president should they remain neutral and leave the campaigning to the candidates. Right now the president is in Connecticut fundraising for Blumenthal the Democratic challenger for the Senate. Bush did the same thing for the Republicans years ago but is it right. Do we want sitting presidents to be out raising money for a candidate or is it not their duty as leader? I know this will never happen but once a president takes office his political views should take a back seat for the good of the country.
     
  2. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #2
    yes.
    they always did and the effect of elections will directly affect their ability to govern.
    of course there should be some limits dictated by common sense and the ability to do his primary job (running the country)
     
  3. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    Should a president use his power to get someone elected or does that bring an unfair advantage. The bigger issue is should they be having $10,000 a plate dinners, Isn't that exploiting the office.
     
  4. william sire macrumors regular

    william sire

    #4
    I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t. He’s not doing anything new since this has been done by every president we can think of. Maybe they shouldn’t but until such or guidelines are established, a currently sitting president should campaign as much as his schedule will allow.
     
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    I thought that the thread title was going to ask about the length with which the candidates are allowed to campaign. I've read that the period is much shorter in other countries, which sounds preferable to our drawn-out process which only serves to distract our President.
     
  6. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    I always think that the president should be a neutral party when it comes to elections. The party should take a backseat for the good of the people. I know thats not how things work in Washington but it should be. We don't elect a president to be out on the campaign trail raising money.
     
  7. 87vert macrumors 6502

    87vert

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #8
    as long as it is not on the taxpayer dime why not. The problem comes when they spend our money.
     
  8. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    Who do you think pays for Presidents to travel from place to place. The taxpayers do regardless of the reasons for the travel. It goes with the job.
     
  9. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    But should that be a part of the job and does it really help a candidates campaign. Are the people there to see the president or the person running? It seems more like a dog and pony show.
     
  10. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #11
    I agree with this.

    All presidents do this, but I never thought it was a good thing.
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    Uh, the same could be said about every aspect of politics in front of a camera....
     
  12. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    So does that make it a good thing, the whole system is about making the most money.

    The president should not be a traveling salesmen.
     
  13. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #14
    Well - campaigning isn't always just for the candidate. Oftentimes, it's a platform for the President to get out a message and highlight his accomplishments. In that respect, it's not much different than the president campaigning for himself. It's all part of politics.
     
  14. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    It is one thing to push your agenda and policy but once a person is elected president he should not be a Republican or a Democrat he should just be the president. The party allegiance should stop the second he takes office.
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    Never. Going. To. Happen.
     
  16. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #17
    And thats why it will always be business as usual. No matter what a president campaigns for nothing will ever change.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    Welcome to Capitalism? :confused:

    I agree with the money part, but its not like we're moving into new revelations about the world or anything.

    You seem to be as much a cynic as I, so how about reading up on some Chomsky? ;)
     
  18. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #19
    Ideally the Head of State should be above politics. Practicalities would have it otherwise. Maybe you people need a hereditary monarchy? :D
     
  19. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #20
    When he's campaigning for office, whatevs (even though in that case he's only campaigning for him/herself). Once elected, the president is supposed to represent all citizens of whatever country, regardless of race, colour, or political affiliation. If he campaigns for one party, he should be willing to - fairly - campaign for the other.

    But to be honest, I don't really care. What really bugs me is when I see celebrities use their status and influence to sway elections. There should be a limit to how much they can do or say politically, the same with monetary campaign contributions. Using your popularity is in many ways more powerful than campaign funds. And if that's not "fair", well, don't go seeking all the popularity in the first place.
     
  20. yg17, Sep 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2010

    yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #21
    Why would the other party want the president out there campaigning for them, even if it it's in a fair manner? Can you imagine sending Obama into a Tea Party crowd? Not only would they not listen to a single word he says, because they think he's a Kenyan born Marxist socialist commie Muslim, I think his life would be in danger. Those people are effing crazy.
     
  21. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #22
    I do not like the fact that my Tax money has to be used to fly and transport the president there. If he wants to campaign for them then I think either the canidate or the party should pay for everything.
     
  22. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #23
    I don't see a problem with the President campaigning for his party, or for anyone else of his choosing. It's been going on as long as I can remember, and I've never had a problem with it.
     
  23. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #24
    How would you define celebrities? Do you think celebrities should be allowed to run for office? Such as Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, or Jesse Ventura? What about Sarah Palin? She's become a celebrity and uses her influence. Should she butt out?
     
  24. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    So citizens are not allowed to have political voices if they are famous? The US Supreme Court just gave carte blanche to corporations in regards to political donations. If I were you I'd be more upset about that as MS or Apple or BP have far deeper pockets than any Hollywood type does.

    What about a corporation? I'd much rather have the public foot the bill than some company expecting payback.
     

Share This Page