THE MOST EXPENSIVE DATE NIGHT IN HISTORY
Couples who have been married for a while have been encouraged in recent years to plan a “date night” once a month or so just to keep the rituals of courtship alive and keep the “spark” of romance in their relationship.
I personally think this is a great idea. And Zsu-Zsu and I can attest to the efficacy of such a practice. Sure beats sitting at home on Saturday night watching some schlocky movie we rented.
Now parenthetically, I lived in Washington, D.C. for 7 years and can tell you that there is lots to do in that city; great restaurants, live theater at the Kennedy Center, great clubs, and more museums than you can shake a stick at.
Why then did our president and his wife feel it necessary to jet off to New York City at taxpayer expense, forcing the NY city cops to throw the usual presidential security cordon around his motorcade, eat at a tony restaurant in the Village, catch a Broadway play, and then jet back so that the Secret Service could tuck them in for the night in their own beds?
Apparently, according to this Politico piece , because the president promised his wife a Broadway show at taxpayer’s expense if he won the election:
President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama landed in New York Saturday afternoon, and after taking a helicopter from JFK into Manhattan, drove up the West Side Highway, where the northbound lanes were shut down by police for their visit, past Ground Zero, into the Village for dinner at the Village’s Blue Hill restaurant. From there, they went north to Times Square, where they went to to see a production of “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” at the Belasco Theater on West 44 Street.
Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest read a statement from Obama: “I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show
Asked about the cost of the trip, which Republicans have criticized as indulgent, coming just ahead of the expected announcement of GM’s bankruptcy filing on Monday, Josh Earnest told pool reporter Dave Michaels of the Dallas Morning News, that he “didn’t anticipate being able to provide a cost estimate tonight.”
How romantic. Our first couple flies to New York City, has a cozy, intimate dinner, and graces the Great White Way with their presence all because our president promised his wife a night on the town (at taxpayer expense) if he won the election.
All this begs the question that is nagging at everyone’s consciousness; did the president and the first lady top off their night with a little marital bliss? A little “slap and tickle?” Were our tax dollars well spent to the point that the Obama’s date night had a happy ending in the bedroom?
Don’t blame me for bringing it up. I am only asking the question because of the torrent of nauseating crap that has been written about the Obama’s and their supposedly superior sex life. And given that the trip cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, I, and most Americans, would like to know if our money was well spent. Have one on us, Barry and by the way, who made the first move - you or Michelle?
You think that kind of speculation is vulgar? Me too. But if, according to Judith Warner in the New York Times, Americans fantasize about having sex with the president, or Michelle (maybe both?), then asking whether this taxpayer financed date ended up with the first couple playing “Hide the Salami” is a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry:
Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president. In these dreams, the women replaced Michelle with greater or lesser guilt or, in the case of a 62-year-old woman in North Florida, whose dream was reported to me by her daughter, found a fully above-board solution: “Michelle had divorced Barack because he had become ‘too much of a star.’ He then married my mother, who was oh so proud to be the first lady,” the daughter wrote me.
There was some daydreaming too, much of it a collective fantasy about the still-hot Obama marriage. “Barack and Michelle Obama look like they have sex. They look like they like having sex,” a Los Angeles woman wrote to me, summing up the comments of many. “Often. With each other. These days when the sexless marriage is such a big celebrity in America (and when first couples are icons of rigid propriety), that’s one interesting mental drama.”
Yeah, I know. I’m just one of those frustrated conservatives who never gets any and is so sexually uptight that doing it anywhere except the bedroom in the missionary position with the lights off and my eyes closed would be considered sexually deviant. At least that’s the explanation given by this fanatical Bush hating blogger:
It’s not that I envision the President endorsing the “Head O State” dildo, or promoting the benefits of masturbation for prostate health, but I’d like to think that in addition to having the occasional cocktail or staying up past nine, Obama will also be looser on matters regarding the sexual behaviors of the public.
To be sure, people were still getting it on during the Bush era. But that era also saw a rise in unwanted pregnancies and infections, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an associated rise in the numbers of folks walking around with psychological or emotional hang-ups regarding sex. Apparently, Bush initiatives like pushing welfare moms into marriage and promoting abstinence until the age of twenty-nine didn’t quite succeed the way he probably hoped.
Truth be told, when Zsu-Zsu and I return from a date night - sometimes at 2 or 3:00 AM - the urge to merge is sometimes overcome by the need for zees. Of course, when the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, there’s always the next morning, if you catch my drift. Suffice it to say, our date nights, while not financed by my neighbors or by the American taxpayer, nevertheless usually have a very happy - and satisfied (if I may brag a bit) - ending.
But what can you say about this kind of brainless, pornographic idiocy? The idea that Obama and the first lady are in love and probably demonstrate that fact on a regular, intimate basis is so wildly stupid a subject to contemplate, perhaps we should help satisfy the prurient curiosity of liberals and have the Obama’s fill out a questionnaire following each of their date nights. After all, if the tax payers are going to help finance the Obama’s conjugal contentment, maybe we should expect a government report on how our money was spent.
At least the New York Magazine was subtle about their curiosity. This piece from that faux intellectual, cheeky cosmopolitan humor publication at least had the decency to fantasize without short stroking their open mouthed wonder at how really kewl it was to have a first couple that did the nasty-nasty now and again.
Writing about a nice pic of Barack and Michelle tenderly touching foreheads on inauguration night, Stacy Shiff gushes:
The gesture is sweetly old-fashioned, redolent of letter sweaters, gallantry, and Cary Grant. The girl is spicy and newfangled. She’s ushering us around a social corner as much as a political one. Professional rivals, Rock and Doris leaped out of bed in those pj’s the year Obama was born; only now are we discovering what a functioning marriage between equals actually looks like. Michelle Obama promises to resolve the mystery Mrs. Spitzer, Mrs. Edwards, and Mrs. McCain left us helplessly to contemplate: What purpose does the political wife serve if she is neither accessory nor casualty? After decades of fake financials and fictitious balance sheets, WMDs that weren’t there and detention centers that were, our new First Lady is the genuine article. She has a real body—arms! Legs! Curves! And she has a real marriage. Here are two people whose bodies speak as eloquently as their words, who hold each other up, who between them get the temperature just right.
Yeah, I’ll bet that “temperature” was on the rise last night. Do we dare ask whether the president plied his sweetheart with some wine just to get her in the mood? Works for me.
I didn’t invent this meme. If the left is going to go all goo-goo about the president and his lady, wondering, dreaming, fantasizing, about them having sex, about having sex with him or her, or even projecting themselves in their roles, then taking these thoughts to their logical conclusion and speculating whether Obama got some after shelling out all that taxpayer money shouldn’t be offensive to anyone, right?
And if liberals want a real love story - one where the passion and tenderness and attraction lasted into the couple’s golden years, I would suggest they read My Turn by Nancy Reagan. Here was a Hollywood power couple that made the academic Obama and his wife look like insignificant amoebas by comparison. The Reagan’s were a true partnership in every sense of the word. And yes, even in their 70’s, most people could imagine them getting it on. You only needed to look at them when they looked at each other to be sure of that.
But back to critiquing the trip, I don’t like presidents promising anybody anything with my tax dollars in the pot. Secondly, the question must be raised; why New York? An RNC spokesman asked, “If President Obama wants to go to the theater, isn’t the Presidential box at the Kennedy Center good enough?”
Thirdly, with GM set to declare bankruptcy next week and American families trying and, in many cases, failing to make ends meet in these hard economic times, shouldn’t the president be a little more circumspect in his private affairs? I recall Nancy Reagan catching holy hell from the press for raising money from friends to purchase a new China set for the White House (the press accused her of ostentation in hard times) and criticizing the first lady for the donated gowns from famous designers she wore to state events. It was evidence that the Reagan’s “didn’t care” about the little people and only cared about partying with their rich friends.
Obama’s New York jaunt was taken because we have a president whose entire career has been in the public sector, where taxpayer money is viewed as a possession of government, to be spent with no more thought and care than you or I would spend money buying a quart of milk at the store. Public employees think we the taxpayers owe them their little perks and privileges since they feel they are vastly underpaid and underappreciated.
In Obama’s case, he gave no more thought to the cost of the trip or the appearance of propriety in hard times due to the same sense of entitlement he and many other upper level government workers feel. The taxpayer’s property is a means to an end - be it funding health insurance or expensing a car for personal use. The amount doesn’t matter. They are entitled to the perks due to the grave responsibility they carry in taking care of us.
If Obama wants to make these little date night jaunts, I would recommend he tap his email list of 3 million names for the money. Surely his disciples can come up with the millions of dollars it takes to indulge President Obama and his wife their little excursions outside of Washington.
This is an expanded version of a blog post that originally appeared in The American Thinker.
Yeah, my initial impression about the “expensive date night in NY” was not positive. At least do it discretely (if that’s possible) but it seemed there was the need to once again make our president’s personal life “special”.
Comment by c3 — 5/31/2009 @ 10:35 am
I keep wondering at what point the public at large will get sick of the attention paid to this couple. I was at the store yesterday and saw a picture of Michelle on Time Magazine (I know shockah!) and couldn’t help but put a mental caption on it which read “Scientists discover Michelle’s gas cures cancer”…
The fundraising and video tributes to the Obamas before 2012 may need to be R rated.
Comment by Brad — 5/31/2009 @ 10:56 am
I’m curious: how much did Mr. Bush’s many brush-clearing expeditions to his Potemkin ranch cost? During war time. While the deficit was skyrocketing. While Brownie was doing a heckuva job.
But of course we knew at least that he and Laura weren’t having hot jungle sex. So that makes it much more palatable.
Isn’t it sort of moronic to equate a vacation - that no one begrudges a president - with a date night that took hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe more) to move to another city.
Nice try. Is that the official Democratic response?
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/31/2009 @ 12:15 pm
Michael Reynolds is nothing if not consistant in his political hackery.
And Rick, you sir are never at a loss for words. I was laughing and enjoying your humor…up until about halfway through, when my eyes started glazing over.
Obama is the epitomy of elitism. “Do as I say, not as I do, you chumps.”
Comment by cdor — 5/31/2009 @ 2:40 pm
@Mr. M.:
“You think that kind of speculation is vulgar? Me too.”
Then I am deeply sympathetic to your plight, being forced at gunpoint to expound on the topic. Well, not at gunpoint exactly, but as you said other people have discussed it, so you’re almost obliged to. Poor you.
G. Gordon Liddy has been catching (I’m sure intentional) flack for his “Sotomayor menstruating” comments, so can we expect to see a post on that from you soon, prefaced with a nice “now I think this topic is inapropriate but . . . ” waiver as well?
Lose the skirt, Shirley. If you’re going to take the low shots, then bite the bullet and take them. Say what you will about Coulter and the rest of the screaming nut-jobs, but at least they don’t waffle on their bile with “I hate to be crass and offensive, but I heard somebody else say this crass thing I’m about to repeat . . .” BS. That’s a dodge and you know it. You meant to giggle like a school-girl and tweak the NutJobbers with purile questions about ObamaGasms, and you did.
That kind of waffling is a politician trick — and you’re better than that. If you’re going to pull the flamethrower out for a post, then just do it and accept that things get burned. Pouring propane inot the tank while saying “now I don’t want anything to catch on fire” is (or should be) embarassing.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/31/2009 @ 4:05 pm
“I’m curious: how much did Mr. Bush’s many brush-clearing expeditions to his Potemkin ranch cost? ”
As a fellow Texas brush-clearer, I can assure you, the cost is less than a broadway show. Actually, aside from chewing through power chain saw chains, the cost is … zero. I do run into a tarantula now and then, but nothing else requiring any security detail. Plus, the cedar grow like weeds, so its not like that’s a cost.
I think the compare would go like this:
Night for 2 out on Broadway -
Broadway show, 2 tickets @75/each - $150
Dinner + wine in swank Manhattan restaurant - $260
Limo, driver, etc. for the night $500
Security - $ thousands$
Air force one for a night - $200,000
Day chopping Cedar in central Texas summer heat
Cedar - free
Heat - free
Lemonade after a days working out in 100F heat - $2
“Good wood?”
“But of course we knew at least that he and Laura weren’t having hot jungle sex.” Really? And you know this … how?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/31/2009 @ 4:08 pm
Mr. Bush’s very, very frequent trips — far more “vacations” than previous presidents — to his phony ranch were for political purposes. So that he could pose as a faux cowboy and convince us all he was a manly man.
Whether it all equates we can see when we add up the total amount spent by Mr. Obama as compared with Mr. Bush.
But of course that kind of judgment would require Republicans to wait and see. A degree of patience and intellectual honesty that conflicts with your sad little effort to work the “elitist” theme.
As usual, you guys have nothing.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/31/2009 @ 4:22 pm
Travis:
Idiot. It’s the travel and security costs, not the Broadway tickets or the dinner. You figure Mr. Bush flew commercial to Crawford?
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/31/2009 @ 4:24 pm
Rick, you dont have to prove you can be as moronic as the neanderthal right wing blowhards. “Oh dear obama put french mustard on his sandwich, that just proves what an anti american socialist he is!” Come on, there must be some issues of substance you can comment on without being attacked by the Coulterites.
Comment by yoyo — 5/31/2009 @ 6:01 pm
Michael Reynolds;
I’m sorry to say this but whenever I see one of your comments a name comes to mind: “Tokyo Rose”
Yes, slowly you are wearing us down, pushing us toward the inevitable deep sense of futility of our deluded world view.
Comment by c3 — 5/31/2009 @ 6:09 pm
@c3:
“Tokyo Rose”? Really? wow.
I’m not a Red, as you probably guessed (p.s.: I’m not Blue either). Some/most of what I hear from this and other Red sites I disagree with (same with Blue spots like FireDogLake).
But no matter how much I’ve disagreed with somebody here or elsewhere, I’ve never considered them to be an enemy agent. That would imply I am at war with other Americans. I must destroy them, bring them to their knees. I had better not listen to anything they have to say because its all propaganda lies. They are my sworn enemy, after all. Victory or death!
. . . wow. I presume you meant it in a flippant way, but you might want to take a moment and think about the implications of that particular choice of descriptor.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/31/2009 @ 6:23 pm
Kind of a stupid argument, but the real cost of these kind of things are not the transport and security costs (although significant). It is the disruption to all of the regular people that had their plans put on hold by this media event, people that had no idea that this stuff was going to be happening on their previously planned “Date night”. Often, people just get their reservations cancelled due to security concerns, and surrounding small businesses are “asked” to close up due to the same concerns.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the Crawford hillbillies and the Bush folks had the drill down and…it being home to stupid country folk and all.
Comment by Andrew — 5/31/2009 @ 7:51 pm
Andrew:
The same thing happens when Brittney Spears shows up. Certain costs are unavoidable. If we’re going to have a president, and we are, we’re going to have some disruption when he leaves the White House. Do you think it would be good for the country if the POTUS were locked in the WH for 8 years?
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/31/2009 @ 9:19 pm
Couldn’t Obama have attended at least 1 meeting or other event when he visited my city? That way, taking Michelle on a date could have easily justified! I guess he saved us all a few bucks by not taking Air Force 1, but going to the Big Apple just partake in some culture was quite unjustified (as Rick points out) as DC no longer the artistic and culinary wasteland it was back in JFK’s term.
The only way this could have been worse is if he had used presidential transport to make a fundraising jaunt. A number of previous presidents have used Air Force 1 flights solely to raise money for their party at events across the country, with no thought of the waste in taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, it seems that presidential transport options are solely at the discretion of the Chief Executive and therefore exempt from congressional limits. A real shame, me thinks!
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/31/2009 @ 10:35 pm
Not the same thing by a longshot, as a little thing called the constitution can be (and usually is) suspended when the POTUS comes to visit…so, not even in the same ballpark…
Too many people tend to confuse paparazzi hustle with the very real mission of the Secret Service.
Other than that, more power to him.
Comment by Andrew — 5/31/2009 @ 10:50 pm
On the related but separate question of culture: no, Washington is not in the first tier. Obama’s been living in Chicago. As a restaurant town Chicago is vastly superior to DC. So I can see Obama looking for something more than DC has to offer.
DC has some very good restaurants but nothing to equal the best of Chicago or New York.
As for musical theater, I couldn’t say: my metrosexuality only goes so far.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/31/2009 @ 10:59 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House: The Most Expensive (Presidential) Date Night in History [...]
Pingback by Best of the Blogs - Weekend of May 31 on The Patriot Room — 6/1/2009 @ 1:11 am
From the horse’s mouth:
“You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime, ”-Barack Obama in Elkhart Indiana on Feb. 9.
“‘This time CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their pay checks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over,”-President Barack Obama on Feb. 24.
But it’s fine for Obunco to trip the life in midtown Manhattan on the “Taxpayer’s Dime” to placate his burly wife? Swing baby! A ring-a-ding-ding. You’re platinum.
Of course, I would rather he was getting his weasel waxed in the ovular orifice during working hours by a chubby young floozie like Slick did. What can THAT cost?
But I guess (sigh) those days are over.
Comment by CZ — 6/1/2009 @ 6:06 am
How ’bout this one CZ? I paraphrase,”Americans can no longer use 25% of the world’s energy when we are just 3% of the world’s population. We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat whatever we want and the rest of the world just says, OK” Obama on the campaign trail.
Obama as POTUS to Michelle, “Hey babe, let’s jet up to NY tonight, have a cool dinner, take in a play, and come back…we can be home by 1:00 am”
With the secret service and nypd and who knows what else, I’d guess he used as much energy and emitted as much CO2 in one night as your and my entire families together do in an entire year.
But hell, he’s sooooo cool.
Like I said, he’s the elite, we’re nothin’ but chumps. Next time you walk to the grocery store, forget about steak and pork chops…it’s rice and beans for us.
Comment by cdor — 6/1/2009 @ 7:06 am
I forgot to mention when I take a business trip and bring my wife along, I pay at least half out of pocket with after tax dollars. You don’t suppose The ObieOne forked out any personal cash for this little “date night” do you?
Comment by cdor — 6/1/2009 @ 7:16 am
busboy;
Sorry that I couldn’t think of any better example of someone who’s seeming sole purpose of speaking is to ridicule and ?demoralize. I in no way was trying to imply that Michael Reynolds is unpatriotic or traitorous. It just seems the vast majority of his comments are not meant to further a discussion but simply to suggest that “once again Republicans demonstrate they are idiots!”
Comment by c3 — 6/1/2009 @ 12:26 pm
C3:
Well, Republicans are doing so very much to prove they are idiots.
But that’s not my main point at all. My main point is much more specific. It is that Rick’s not nearly enough of an idiot to continue being a Republican. I’m hoping he’ll eventually come to his senses, throw off the cold, dead hand of The Base, and make formal his move from “R” to “I.” (I wouldn’t suggest he go all the way to “D.” Not right away.)
So actually, I’m helping. Because I am all about the love and the helping.
Comment by michael reynolds — 6/1/2009 @ 12:43 pm
@c3:
Fair enough. As I said, I assumed you didn’t use it for the “Full Monty” implications . . . otherwise you’ve been hiding your fanaticism pretty damn well
Comment by busboy33 — 6/1/2009 @ 1:28 pm
It is immaterial to me WHO BO is screwing - as long as it isn’t the country!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 6/1/2009 @ 2:08 pm
Wingnuts are obsessed when Obama does ANYTHING. They should just zip it because we had 8 years of their boy king, and he was a disaster. The Iraq war costs us 10 billion a month, hows that for wasting money? Obama must be getting under your skin, are your heads going to explode?Limbaugh is also in a full freaking meltdown, damn, I hope Obama wins in 2012, just for the pure unadulterated pleasure of wingnuts getting on the Crazy Train. Obama is just plain smarter than everyone else. Plain and simple.
Comment by Joe — 6/1/2009 @ 7:38 pm
Crisis? What crisis? Obama goes on a date and Lativa does something else to lift the spirit. I just couldn’t help myself but who is whining now? The Europeans?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,627912,00.html
Comment by funny man — 6/1/2009 @ 10:10 pm
Gayle
It is immaterial to me WHO BO is screwing - as long as it isn’t the country!
Sorry to say that is exactly what he is doing.
Comment by Alarm1201 — 6/2/2009 @ 10:30 am
Gayle:
Oh, so sorry: you missed the boat on this particular phony outrage. It never got any traction.
But never fear, the GOP outrage factory will spit out something equally ludicrous in a few days. You can get yourself worked up all over again.
Comment by michael reynolds — 6/2/2009 @ 2:08 pm