Obama decided to visit some FDNY firefighters over the past few days after the killing of Osama.


My question to you all is, and it's relatively opinionated as facts cannot truly be proven: Do you think that the primary reason that Obama visited the FDNY is because he truly cares for our emergency personnel, or because he's looking for a boost in his numbers?


Obama, not to my recollection, hasn't visited a PD/FD/EMS Station prior, only after the death of Osama.


Was it a publicity stunt?


My opinion: I am not heavily into politics, but I am intelligent enough to understand political maneuvers such as this. I believe, whole-heartedly, that it was a publicity stunt. If Obama truly cared, he would have been visiting fire houses and police stations long ago, not just in the past week.


What do you all think of this?


And please, keep it relatively friendly.

Views: 400

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm going to tell you this. Whether or not he's my favorite President, is none of your business, He is our Commander and Chief, I'll respect him for that. Every day I wake up and thank god that I'm an American, I have served my country, my flag and my president, for that I'm proud. God Bless America!!!!
I love America, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to love the "Commander in Chief". Just because he's our President doesn't mean he's perfect, nor is he ethical.

I'm not saying that if Obama were to walk up to me right now and offered me a handshake that I'd turn him down, but I don't agree with some of his policies or the way in which he is handling certain things.

And, as I said before, Presidents ARE NOT PERFECT. Scandals, corruption, unlawful and unethical spending and utilization of resources - Presidents have done all of these. But I guess you'll still respect them either way.
Took all of 10 seconds to find Obama visiting fire stations during the campaign in 2008


For the heck of it, I also dug up this quote from Obama in 2007:
"It is a noble calling what you do [as firefighters]. You know that. I know that. This country knows that. But sometimes Washington forgets. They praise your work. But when it’s time for you to get health care or buy the radios and equipment you need, those supporters disappear like a puff of smoke.

Instead of making your job easier, they tried to cut funding so that you couldn’t buy the masks and suits you need. They wanted to stop the hiring of 75,000 new firefighters. They wanted to hide the US Fire Administration under layers of bureaucracy at Homeland Security. And 5 years after September 11th, they still won’t give our first responders the health care they earned that day.

What keeps Washington from doing all that it needs to do to better protect our firefighters, police officers, and EMT’s--it’s not a lack of ideas and solutions that’s holding us back. It is the smallness of our politics."
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

I dunno, I'd say you hate the guy to the point that it clouds you judgement.
During his CAMPAIGN in 2008 - not Presidency.

Like I said, it may, in fact, be a political move.

Obama and his advisors know that people love firefighters, so it would be logical to plot a few fire houses on their campaign trail.

If I am wrong about this, and Obama has been hanging out at firehouses and police stations throughout his term, then I apologize. But as of right now, I think something is a little fishy.

Of course the president's visit to the FDNY is largely - or even completely - a matter of public relations. So what? That's what politicians (all politicians) do. They don't kiss babies and shake hands because they're in love with humanity. Why do you have a problem with this?


Hate is a strong word and one that you should probably be a little more reluctant to use.
And please, keep it relatively friendly.
By that do you mean, agree with you?

I am not heavily into politics, but I am intelligent enough to understand political maneuvers such as this.
So what you are saying is that because the President visited ground zero, it was only for political benefit? When does a president do something that is NOT for political benefit? What about bush on the aircraft carrier with the HUGE (and highly ironic) banner that read; 'Mission Accomplished"?

What would your position have been if the president had NOT attended the ceremony yesterday?

If you are "...intelligent enough to understand political maneuvers..." then you should obviously be aware of all of the following, not to mention the personal/corporate/network agendas in how they view this visit (among other actions taken by the president.)

President Bush routinely did not attend 9-11 memorial services at the World Trade Center. The only time he visited was a couple of days after 9/11.

Bush turns down Obama’s invitation to visit Ground Zero in New York

September 08, 2010 Fox News is attacking President Obama's decision to attend a 9-11 memorial at the Pentagon rather than the World Trade Center site.

Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin went on Fox News to claim that President Obama was not welcome at Ground Zero because his administration was not “listening to 9-11 families.” Gretchen Carlson accused President Obama of visiting the site in order to “brag” about the death of bin Laden. Glenn Beck referred to the President’s visit as a “crass” and “obscene” victory lap.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Conservative media turns on President Obama over Ground Zero visit (Video) - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/conservative-med...

NEW YORK Sept. 11, 2008 -- John McCain and Barack Obama walked side-by-side down the long ramp into Ground Zero Thursday, putting aside their increasingly testy campaign for a day to lay roses in the reflecting pool commemorating the terrorist attacks seven years ago.

Right-wing media attacked Obama for "demean[ing] the memory" of 9-11 victims for calling for a 9-11 day of service. In 2009, conservative media figures attacked Obama for his "decision to remember 9-11 as a national day of service." For instance, radio host Laura Ingraham declared that "marking 9-11 as a day for volunteerism demeans the memory of the thousands who were killed by Muslim extremists on that fateful September morning." Glenn Beck, who has said that he "hates" 9/11 families, complained that Obama allegedly did not consult 9-11 family members before making the National Day of Service decision. Beck also likened the move to "the rape of a sacred memory." Rush Limbaugh accused Obama of "twisting 9-11 into a nationalist day of service to the state."

Bush frequently called on Americans to volunteer on 9-11. Bush, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, cited the spirit of 9-11 and announced that he was creating the USA Freedom Corps, a national service organization. He [[, and]] called "for every American to commit at least two years, 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation."

According to a USA Freedom Corps press release, on the first anniversary of 9-11, Bush said, "Many ask, 'What can I do to help in our fight?' And the answer is simple. All of us can become a September the 11th volunteer by making a commitment to service in our own communities." According to a September 8, 2008, Corporation for National and Community Service press release, "President Bush today renewed the call he made in the wake of the 9-11 attacks for every American to give 4,000 hours or two years of their lives in service to others."

It just seems that some people can and will politicize everything. Worse is that they simply parrot what they hear on TV.

Worse still, that no matter what a person president does, it will ALWAYS be the wrong thing in the eyes that disagree (hate, despise) with him.






P.s. Hope this was friendly enough.
Whereas bush regularly DID hang out at firehouses and police stations?
Me thinks thou are seeing through slanted lenses.
There you have it. There's disagreeing with the president, and hating/despising him. (Or even both). But they are not automatically the same thing.
A further thought:

President Obama didn't visit with teachers, or iron workers, or carpenters. Does this mean he doesn't like them? Or he simply doesn't need their support? Or are they just not highly visible enough targets to warrant his political agenda? Or was it perhaps because of the job that police and fire do and the loss they suffered (as a profession)?

What about the color of his tie? Was it appropriate? Too bright? Too somber? Did he smile too much in talking with the firemen and cops (seemingly to be too overjoyed) or did he not smile enough (seemingly bored or distracted)?

Was his visits with the houses and stations long enough, or far too short?
Was his appearance in NYC, at ground zero and where he visited welcomed by the city of New York or was his visit considered a huge disruption in traffic?

When you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. One can look at any situation and find fault, agendas, politics and maneuvering just as easily as one can accept for face value what it is. In this case, the President of the United States, paying respect to those killed on 9/11 and visiting with the first responders who took a toll that day as well.

It isn't so much how you look at it as it is what you choose to see.
By friendly I meant no bashing anyone else for their personal opinion in the matter.

I can understand that people will percieve matters in different lights, and this instance is no different at all.

This was my personal opinion - Obama should have been visiting firehouses and police stations sporadically, not just when there's an anniversary or a significant event. Is that so much to ask for? Is it really so much to ask for a President to mingle with "we, the people" from time to time, especially emergency personnel? I don't think so. However, he does have time to do draft picks for college sports. What about conducting presidential business quielty for, well, being ethical, rather than the "good press"?

There was a Nassau police officer that died in the line of duty a couple of months ago. I know many police officers die each year, so I can understand why he wouldn't go to every single police funeral. But this guy was in an "elite" squad, he was a volunteer firefighter, AND he was killed by a retired MTA cop that was "buffing" the call. Why didn't he attend that? Because it was small time compared to the more densely-populated city?

This is just my perception. He promised transparency, but he has had conflicting policies in certain matters.

Initially I was happy that he was elected, but I knew that was only because he was the lesser evils of the two. I feel like he is too occupied trying to take care of other countries while ours is still in a downward spiral - Houston is laying off firefighters, FDNY was having hiring troubles, many police agencies are not hiring or are hiring minimally, and so on.

But I can see where you're coming from when it boils down to perception. Supporties will praise him for doing such a good deed and visiting the heroes, whereas opposers will call it a political stunt. However, I wouldn't call myself an "opposer"; Rather, I'd call myself curios and open-minded about such instances.
Why should a president (any president) be expected to visit with emergency personnel more than any other trade or profession? I think you think that way because you happen to be a firefighter. Imagine how the iron workers (who both built and helped dismantle the WTC) must feel, being slighted by the president.

Regardless of how relevant, or important you may think a particular LODD may be, if a president decides to attend one LODD, every other one he misses is perceived as a slight (or insult). On the one hand, you appear to condemn the president for visiting with FDNY and NYPD as a political stunt while on the other hand, condemn him for NOT attending a police LODD,
which likewise could (would) have been seen as little more than a political stunt. You really can't have it both ways.

Transparency has nothing to do with attending (or not attending) LODD ceremonies. It does have to do with how he transacts business (as well as the rest of the government).

Dealing with issues in other countries is actually in the job description for the president. Running the country on a day-to-day basis is really what the legislative branch does. That Houston, or any fire department is laying off (or instituting rolling brownouts or station closures) is NOT the purview of the President. They are all local and state issues. Yet the federal government DOES make available grants for those departments.

Curious and open minded suggests a willingness to see all sides to an issue, to be open to any and all information and be willing to make a decision based on the best available information and in line with what is the best course of action. An "opposer" would be more along the lines of someone who consistently finds fault in a person regardless of that person's intent.
I know I'm gonna get flamed for this. I've got thick skin.

He used it as an excuse to check on the status of the mosque.

I think he is already running for re-election. His track record of using tax payer money for personal trips and other events: The flyover of NY with Air Force 1 as an example, are indicators of his lack of respect for the American people.

Texas was denied disaster status for the wildfires last month, but Alabama got a disaster declaration with no problems. Prove to me that wasn't political!

Reply to Discussion


FireRescue Magazine

Find Members Fast

Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2020   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service