“The most troubling part for the president is that he’s become so unpopular that donors don’t want their names to be associated with his events”

Posted by on Jun 26, 2012 at 6:49 am
Barack Obama

Last week the Obama crew demanded that Karl Rove and his Crossroads group should reveal their list of private donors, ironically just hours before claiming executive privilege to try and continue the cover-up of the Obama-Holder Fast & Furious scandal. So isn’t it curious that while on his daily fundraising binge Monday, Obama himself had someone privately foot the tab for security at a New Hampshire stop after the locals decided they’d had enough of this freeloader campaigning on the public dime.

Yet they won’t disclose the donor.

With an anonymous donor picking up Durham’s $20,000 security tab for President Obama’s campaign stop yesterday, local conservatives are demanding transparency, and questioning whether the arrangement might put the Democratic candidate on the wrong side of election laws.

“This scheme raises more questions for the Obama campaign than it resolves, but aside from any potential legal concerns, the most troubling part for the president is that he’s become so unpopular that donors don’t want their names to be associated with his events,” said Tory Mazzola, executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

“We don’t know if it’s a corporation, a foreign entity, we don’t know if it’s the Sultan of Brunei,” said Corey Lewandowski, the New Hampshire director of Americans for Prosperity. “That’s a real problem. … These are all questions that can’t be answered because we don’t know who the donor is.”

And you’ll probably never find out. Transparency rules, apparently, prevent Obama from ever being transparent, while demanding it from others.

It turns out a Durham resident allegedly picked up the tab after the Obama campaign declined. He seemingly needs every dollar he can get his hands on.

Before the donor stepped in, town councilors planned to have an emergency meeting yesterday morning — just hours before Obama’s speech — to discuss how to address the bill. “We didn’t feel it was right that a campaign be paid for by the Durham taxpayers,” Gooze said.

The town asked the Obama campaign to pay, but the campaign declined, writing that “as a private organization” it “does not participate in security and traffic control planning.”

They really have no shame.

Later on the failed president stumbled into Boston, where he of course stiffed the locals there.

Outraged taxpayer advocates slammed President Obama for lavishly politicking on the taxpayers’ dime last night, as Boston ran up a hefty tab providing security so the Democratic incumbent could breeze in and out of town for a series of re-election events.

“It’s an atrocious waste of taxpayer money,” said David Tuerck, a government ethics watchdog with Suffolk University. “There is no taxpayer interest in any of this. It’s all about getting him re-elected, and the campaign should pay for everything.”

Mayor Mumbles Menino naturally slobbered over Obama. Maybe he should pay himself.

“It’s very exciting for the city. I’ll just say we’re honored by having him here tonight,” Menino said.

City Hall refused to provide a cost estimate, but one city official predicted it could run between $150,000 to $200,000 to provide security for Obama, in town on a $3.1 million fundraising tear. The Boston Police Department had hordes of officers outside Hamersley’s Bistro in the South End and at Symphony Hall. Boston police will also likely provide security as Obama stays the night and leaves this morning.

“Given that many municipalities are facing budget crunches of their own, squeezing them even further for political events can grate on a lot of residents’ nerves,” said Pete Sepp, vice president of the conservative-leaning National Taxpayers Union. He argued that presidents from both political parties should pick up their campaign tabs.

“This is a major problem of incumbency. They utilize Air Force One and all trappings to make political trips, and they only pay a portion of it with their campaign funds,” he said.

Don’t worry, though. This campaign cycle will be the last we see of this. Rest assured in four years when President Romney is campaigning for re-election there will probably be running tabs of campaign costs on a scroll at MSNBC and CNN.

That is  if those entities still exist in 2016.

Tags: , ,

16 Responses to ““The most troubling part for the president is that he’s become so unpopular that donors don’t want their names to be associated with his events””

  1. Barack Obama on 26/26/12 at 8:05 am

    What’s the problem. My money is my money. And your money is my money.

    You should be thanking me.

  2. Brush on 26/26/12 at 8:13 am

    For liberals the rules will always be different for them. They claim moral superiority despite having no morles, they claim everyone else is the party of hate despite the Klan being a Democratic anti-Republican group, and they claim they are for freedom while they try and get Rush off the air (I don’t listen to him personally but sinc ehe’s anti-liberal I figure he can’t be all bad)

  3. A.Men on 26/26/12 at 8:17 am

    How many trillions of taxpayer money can be spent from now until election Nov. 2012 by thug President-In-Name-Only? Buh-rock is spending as much as possible before then!

  4. Larry E on 26/26/12 at 9:25 am

    You look at that face we know so well, and hear that braying voice we know so well, and the inescapable thought rises: bullshitter. Grifter. Con man. Hypocrite, phony, Mussolini for morons.

    He has designs on the country which he hides behind gaseous vapor like “Hope and change.” People get wise after awhile.

  5. Buck O'Fama on 26/26/12 at 9:46 am

    In 2008, Obama was the lightbringer, now he’s the light shutter-offer. Change!

  6. Blue Hen on 26/26/12 at 10:08 am

    I have ginormous amopunt of confidence that JEF can solve all our fiscal problems. After all, he simply has to utilize the same principles that govern his campaign…Wait.

  7. Justsomebody on 26/26/12 at 10:23 am

    You ungrateful SLOBS! Now, go sell a kidney and send
    me the money.


  8. HeatherRadish on 26/26/12 at 10:30 am

    Maybe they don’t want their names out because they fear their reputations, lives, and businesses will be destroyed. You know, the way Obama does to Romney donors.

  9. Blacque Jacques Shellacque on 26/26/12 at 12:30 pm

    “‘…the most troubling part for the president is that he’s become so unpopular that donors don’t want their names to be associated with his events,’ said Tory Mazzola, executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party.”

    Heh, they don’t want their names to be associated with Obie’s event, yet they’re still dumb enough to be willing to shell out money for him.

    Pathetic sacks of crap, all of them.

  10. crosspatch on 26/26/12 at 4:04 pm

    I don’t understand why Boston had to spend an extra dime on security for Obama’s campaigning. If the campaign wants additional security, fine, let the campaign pay for it, in advance. No check, no security. It pretty much is that simple. He has Secret Service, that’s what they’re for.

  11. attilathehun on 26/26/12 at 10:14 pm

    Just taking after Jesse Jackson who stiffed towns/cities wherever he went with the Rainbow Coalition. Maggot.

  12. Jacky Seazt on 27/27/12 at 5:35 am

    well that reminds me of a movies “others people money” — he knows that game very well…

  13. Purp (@PurpAv) on 27/27/12 at 7:09 am

    Towns should simply stop providing services for the deadbeat. No added security, no planning, no traffic control, simply act as if he’s not in town.

  14. hutch1200 on 29/29/12 at 8:41 pm

    Hell he keeps sending the bill BACK to Chicago for the party and mess that had to be cleaned up the night of his coronation!