This may not be the biggest story of the year, and in all likelihood it probably isn’t even true. But did the president really order the first dog back from Hawaii to the White House to be a prop for a Petsmart photo op? According to a report, Bo (a dog whose name is an acronym for his owner’s — coincidence?) was spotted one day in Hawaii, where Mrs. Obama had gone for vacation in advance of her husband, and in a “regular guy at the pet store” photo-op with President Obama in Virginia the next day.
Granted, this could be accomplished with no cost to the taxpayer, if Air Force Two (which would have flown Mrs. Obama to Hawaii) was returning home to Andrews AFB anyway. And reports of Bo (the dog, not the president) being in Hawaii could well prove false, thus mooting Bo-gate as an election-year political scandal. But let’s say it is true. Really, Mr. President? And shouldn’t some advance staffer be fired for letting the dog get on the plane in the first place?
Doesn't Bo have his own plane?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehehehe...
What is a Obama doing wasting the taxpayer dime, shopping for his dog?
We are paying way too much on a vast staff to do this type of cheap errand work.
He supposedly canceled the vacation to do some work, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThinking about it, maybe it is sign the Democratic Party knows Romney will be the GOP.
They are laying groundwork to show Obama is such a wonderful pet owner. While they will try again to rerun the distortion over Romney's vacation with the Family Dog securely transported in a safe carrier because of a very full car, like nearly every large American Family did when taking road vacation from the 1940's though the 1980's.
Democrats cannot run on their dreadful policies and endless failure, they have to try to go with image and dehumanizing their perceived opposition.
It is a sad history, taking everyone down with them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What is a Obama doing wasting the taxpayer dime, shopping for his dog?"
"We are paying way too much on a vast staff to do this type of cheap errand work."
Getting a real laugh over this contradictory pair of sentences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm shaking my head with smiles, but I'm going to defend the Old Man:
Either we pay to have a huge presidential staff to do things we think are beneath the chief executive, or he can do them himself (which he did) and we can cut the size of the staff.
So, if the president is going to do his own personal errands, we can slash the entourage.
There is no contradiction whatsoever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, we can't, because then we need a bigger entourage to protect him while he does these errands.
C'mon, he did this for a photo op. The president's time is booked solid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, it's only other people's money. What's to worry?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm willing to concede that such a trip would not cost the taxpayer a dime, since a military cargo support plane likely made the trip with the first lady to Hawaii, and that plane would definitely returned to Andrews even if AF2 stayed in Hawaii. Staffers, secret service, milaides, etc., often make the hop back on the military flight if needed in D.C., and a dog could hitchhiked on the cargo plane for no extra cost. So to be clear, this isn't about the cost -- it's about the silliness of the whole venture (if true).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo. Mr Coffin, it IS about the cost. Starting with the fact that the entourage of the President (going back a number of Administrations) is waaaay to huge, why did this particular plane make the trip to HI in the first place. I understand that the President never left DC.
It is perfectly acceptable that the President's family flies with him to vacation. It is totally unacceptable that I must pay for a separate trip because his family does not wish to wait for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou take issue with the separate trip by the First Lady to Hawaii. That does present a separate issue of cost. Having served a Vice President who flew a lot of places, I'm willing to give the President some leeway in his personal travel. He can't live his whole life in D.C., and he can't fly alone commercial. The cost of Presidential travel is a cost associated with having a President these days. So when he and his family go somewhere, even on a long vacation, I don't get too upset personally, but recognize why many Americans would and don't find that sort of complaint unjustified. But putting that aside, you are 100% correct that these separate family trips (President and First Lady flying separately to the same place a few days apart, which also happened this summer to Martha's Vineyard) are a waste of taxpayer dollars. I wasn't addressing that aspect of the trip. My only point was that this little dog trip stunt is about frivolity, not about cost.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. So for something that might not have happened, might not have cost the taxpayer anything, and was likely not ordered by the President himself ("Get my dog back for that random photo-op at PetSmart! Oh, and what about those Patriots going to China?" sounds plausible, right?), the Corner is in a frenzy.
2. All those complaining about the cost of the President and First Lady traveling separately, I'm sure you made the same complaint when the Bushes did so?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Rasputin's whole point was the part about seperate flights. But in terms of the allowance for the possibility that the dog would have returned with the flight crew, or some such; wouldn't the crew either turn around and go right back to the AFB, or, at most, stay the night and leave in the morning the next day? Doesn't seem like there'd be much chance for the dog to be seen out and about with the first lady and still make the flight with the crew back to the AFB. Not impossible, but not likely.
Plus there's the whole, why would you even fly a dog out to hawaii, just to have him fly home? I suppose travel for the pres and his family is not as difficult as flying commercial, but even so, I can't imagine that's a fun trip for a dog to make.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShannen: It is beyond "frivolity" it is arrogance and the feeling of entitlement Obama has. His behavior and that of his wife is more like that of an African or Latin American potentate than that of President of the United States. Just let the peons pay for it appears to be the attitude of Michelle and BHO. It is really annoying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo Rasputin, it's not about the cost, it's about the story being a falsehood, a canard, and all the fools who pounce on it as if it were Gospel because it purports to show President Obama and the First Lady in a demeaning way. Now do you know what it's about? Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This may not be the biggest story of the year, and in all likelihood it probably isn’t even true."
Yet the writer manages to invent and imagine any scenario possible for this probably false story?? Since when did The Corner become The National Enquirer? I'm surprised there were no mentions of aliens or Bigfoot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps I should have said that I would indulge the possibility that the story is not true. But reports last week in local Hawaii newspapers said that the dog was seen by neighbors walking near the compound. External Link
I don't have any reason to doubt them, and it strikes me that the deniers have the burden of disproving them. And what's wrong with the Enquirer? I think you may be holding the Corner to a lot higher standard than we aspire to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone reported a rumor about some people who in turn say they think they saw a dog resembling Bo "walking" near the compound where the Obama family is saying and THAT justifies this ridiculous attack on the President? You can't be serious. You REALLY think he flew the dog ALL the way back here from Hawaii to have a photo op? How does that even make any sense? You're basing the entire story on a reported rumor of a sighting, kind of like the sightings of Bigfoot and Elvis, and upon this unverified story you impugn the President's character. Shame on you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And what's wrong with the Enquirer?"
Indeed! Weren't they the crowd that dogged John Edwards until the beans were spilled on his escapades?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll these Enquirer readers are no doubt convinced that there IS a statue of Elvis on Mars. And people wonder where Ron Paul voters come from. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I think you may be holding the Corner to a lot higher standard than we aspire to."
There's nothing I can add to that comment to make it any more revealing and damning...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse