Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guarding POTUS

Original post made by Paul Losch, Community Center, on Jun 7, 2013

Obama visits Palo Alto.

First of all, I think that it's great that he comes to see us. As best as I recall, George W. [portion removed] did not come here one time. Were we too smart for his Texas intellect?

The POTUS entourage blew though town about his time a year ago to raise money for his re-election campaign. It took place at the home of Melissa Meyers, now Yahoo CEO, at a typical north Palo Alto neighborhood, three blocks from my place.

Barricades everywhere, at least 50 motorcycle cops plus the armored limos driving along Middlefield to the street that shall not be named, but near the HP "Garage" home.

My daughter was on her way last evening walking to the CalTrain, and discovered a similar disruption on another nearby street, which also shall remain nameless. Incredible disruption, even for a mere pedestrian trying to do a normal thing.

I am glad that our President comes here, even if it is to raise money for campaigns. I prefer that to a President who chooses to not show up.

I will accept the inconveniences. They indicate that what we think and do around here is taken seriously in DC.

Comments (25)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shrub Farms
a resident of Woodside
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm

I marvel at all the posts that fall into the anti-Obama visit category. I, too, would rather our President visit while on his way to do business. Those that moan about traffic must be out of town every Friday night Stanford plays at home! Just wait to see what a Monday night Niner game does to 101 and 85 in a couple years!

Those that whine about the only reason being to raise money for various causes? Most curious if they object to the other side raising that kind of money. Personally, I agree with the posters that argue for taking money out of campaigns. A good public financing program, coupled with forcing TV stations (in exchange for using the public commons) should offer vastly reduced rates for political ads. Ass it stands, TV stations have their most profitable quarters during election cycles, with the political ads driving ad rates up for all advertisers, under the current arrangement. Someone had a great post about members of congress and their required 'call time', in one of the Obama threads. Things have to change.

Someone also had a post about Obama doing more public events while out here. I agree. I would love to take my grandkids to hear a president speak.

Even Paul's 'shrub'.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by paly parent
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm

Paul - I'm also glad that Obama came to visit, ironically that same "nameless" street hosted John Kerry and Al Gore years ago (not at the same time).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Web Link

Obama is a scripted person, he cannot simply explain his own thoughts in a straightforward way. Look at the link, above, to see what happens when his script goes missing, this morning. Obama is also a hypocrite, since he criticized GWB's security measures, while campaigning, but amplifies them while governing.
[Portion removed.]
Paul Losch reminds me of "all hat, no cattle", as they say in cattle country.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shrub Farms
a resident of Woodside
on Jun 7, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Jim: I saw it live. It was kind of humorous. Would you proceed with statements in front of the whole country without prepared remarks? Off the cuff? While you spent the whole morning on a different subject with different, more important preparation? Yeah, didn't think so.

President Obama is brilliant. It's okay to not like him, his appearance or his politics. When the entire fringe right tries to belittle him as dumb, and goes on and on with the teleprompter quips after we experienced 8 years of Bushisms, I find that not funny, but sad. Sad for you.

Just remember, Reagan used a teleprompter. And as far as intellect, Reagan was no Obama. An actor, yes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm

"Reagan was no Obama"

And how lucky we are! Reagan led from the front and won the cold war. Obama leads from behind, as the world crumbles in front of him. In fact, he is Jimmy Carter redux.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 7, 2013 at 3:07 pm

Jim regurgitates the same tired talking points we constantly hear from the far right. The truth has no place in their narrative.
BTW -- who got bin laden? Who turned our economy around?
And all that despite constant obstacles thrown in his path by The republicans. Which world is crumbling, Jim?
bTW, even Sharon supports Obama now


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shrub Farms
a resident of Woodside
on Jun 7, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Jim: review of Paul's blog shows how you have an issue that prompts you to have posts edited; I think I see why. I mentioned Obama is brilliant, Reagan was an actor -- you chose not to reply to that but to cite the fringe right meme on RR. That's okay.

Reagan did indeed do something "from the front": he traded weapons to Iran for hostages and lied about it, then shipped the guns to the contra drug runners in Nicaragua. "From the front" Reagan tripled our national debt. "From the front" Reagan raised taxes on middle class, working Americans 11 times. "From the front" Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis and cost the lives of thousands by not responding earlier. "From the front" Reagan ran like a little girl after hundreds of US Marines were slaughtered in Beirut.

"From the front" Reagan and his staff were the most criminal administration in our history, worse even than Nixon! "From the front" Reagan had so many multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, which is the largest number for any US president.

Yes, Reagan was in office as the USSR collapsed of it's own weight. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Yes, Reagan was in office as we recovered from the post Nixon/Vietnam recession and the oil embargoes. Surely, if you give Reagan credit for that, then you must give Obama credit for this:
Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:05 pm

"Reagan was in office as the USSR collapsed of it's own weight"

That is the typical extreme left view of things, in hindsight.
Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John put the pressure on, and made it happen, because they led from the front. Obama leads from behind, while the world suffers.

BTW, I am not complaining about security details for Obama. I just find it amusing that the extreme lefties are so fawning about him!

I suggest that that the Weekly just shut this thread down. It was a puerile attempt by Paul Losch to get a dig at GWB. Makes my wonder why Paul is still a selected commentator by the Weekly...he has not earned the right.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Roger Overnaut
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm

The USSR collapsed during the Bush 41 regime because the ruling Communist Party stuck with an unworkable ideology. The USA would collapse the same way if the Reagan-worshiping Tea Party got its way.

Anyway, Reagan's conservative cred is gone. He raised taxes 11 times and cooperated with liberal Democrats to pass an immigration amnesty.

"Paul Losch reminds me of "all hat, no cattle", as they say in cattle country."

That's what John Kerry said about Bush 43.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shrub Farms
a resident of Woodside
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Reagan "led from the front" in criminal indictments, scandals, tax hikes on working Americans, tripling the debt, giving weapons to Iran, and more.

""Reagan was in office as the USSR collapsed of it's own weight" is not a left wing view, it is historical fact. Are you saying the USSR economy was booming or thriving in 1980? If so, you're in error. Look it up.

Or we can ask the CIA:

"What Did CIA Say?

The story that the CIA presented over the decade and a half before the political breakup of the Soviet Union can be broken into three analytic phases.
1. The Failing System
2. Enter Gorbachev
3. The Showdown
- The economy yet again was described as having faltered badly since the mid-1970s and resembling that of a developing country, despite the USSR's status as a military superpower.
- The political situation in the Soviet Union was described as "less stable than at any time since Stalin's great purges in the 1930's," and glasnost was depicted as having opened the doors to nationalist movements that "if unchecked, could threaten to tear the system apart."

Even CIA is telling Jim that the USSR collapsed of it's own failing weight.

But let's let jim have his little mancrush on RR and thatch, actual facts, date and history be damned (or see CIA Web Link )


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:52 pm

"The USSR collapsed during the Bush 41 regime because the ruling Communist Party stuck with an unworkable ideology"

Nope. It fell because it was pressured by Reagan, ideologically, militarily and economically. Jimmy Carter and his minions (including his CIA) were infamous for predicting that the Soviet Union would not go away. Reagan made it go away.

Few people, 50 years from now, will remember Barack Obama for anything more than being the first black president. However, Reagan will be remembered 200 years from now, as the president who won the cold war.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Private Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Factual error in the story:

The fund raiser last year was at the home of Marissa Mayer (then of Google, now of Yahoo), not "Melissa Meyers".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:16 pm

@ Paul: You state the obvious: W never came to town. I think we all know why, no fund raising support here in PA. Quite the opposite for Obama.

W did make appearances in SF on annual basis.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:16 pm

@ Paul: You state the obvious: W never came to town. I think we all know why, no fund raising support here in PA. Quite the opposite for Obama.

W did make appearances in SF on annual basis.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Jim-- Obama got bin laden. Reagen let the terrorist slaughter 200 marines in Beirut and did nothing. All you have is the " reagen destroyed the user myth"
Even Sharon likes Obama now


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:22 pm

If the President had come here to make a speech, a public appearance, to meet with high tech leaders, or Stanford people, I would not have minded so much.

He didn't.

He came here to meet privately with a load of his cronies who paid more than many Palo Altans could afford to contribute to raise money in a non election year. He caused many people to change their plans due to road closures and other inconveniences.

I for one am not impressed with this "private" visit to Palo Alto. Absolutely nothing about his politics, but all about his ego and arrogance.

It is definitely worthwhile being able to see a sitting president in one's town - but he was not here to be seen by the common people, just a specially invited few.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm

Resident-- it as a fundraiser all politicians fund raise-- even the rEpublicans. So it is not the visits that is the pRoblem, it is the fact thatbitnis Obama visiting. If it was Sarah palin you would be overjoyed


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm

[Portion removed.]

You say "First of all, I think that it's great that he comes to see us" - Obama did not come to see us; he came to collect money. The only people he "saw" were people who paid $10,000 or more.

"Melissa Mayer" is not the CEO of Yahoo. It's Marissa. At lease both names start with a "M", and it's not a typical "North Palo Alto" neighborhood; her house is much bigger, and much more expensive.

"They indicate that what we think and do around here is taken seriously in DC" - The only thing they take seriously is either the money or pandering to their special interest groups. Did Obama have a townhall meeting?

You are much too infatuated with being 3 blocks where Obama had a fund raiser.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Common Sense,

[Portion removed.]

I admit I got the name of my neighbor and Yahoo's current CEO's name mis-spelled.

Do not discount a visit here from national leaders. Even if it is a fundraiser, the leader gets an earful and it provides access to the leader's team going forward.

Compare that with someone who never came to visit. I know what I prefer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 8, 2013 at 2:39 pm

This visit wasn't about the POTUS's ego at all, but it was all about politics and money. It's now standard for the POTUS to fundraise for his party in the areas that most support his party. It's ain't rocket surgery, folks.

When I was a kid here, I don't recall this many presidential visits, despite the Sili Valley success still existing. But that Sili Valley is now one of the powerhouses in the world is why those visits have increased & is a big reason why many of you - including the whiners - now live here. Buck up - you've chosen this place & this way of life, so you gotta deal w/the responsibilities that come w/your many privileges.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 8, 2013 at 8:20 pm

I gotta say in the interests of non-partisanship ... which I mostly am not ... this trend of making insulting jokes or political comments with President's names or the names of the political parties is really a bad one and I wish it would stop, and I wish media would not allow it, and point out the reason. If you have something anyone else with a brain is going to be interested in listening to, please leave out the inane and boring puns and insults to whatever President you are referring to ... please!?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent park known
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 8, 2013 at 8:30 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 8, 2013 at 8:41 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

What was it supposedly that Reagan actively did? Spent a lot in the military, and I wonder where all that money went because he sure as hell was unwilling to use it except to pick on little nations like Grenada?

I've seen the case made eloquently that Gorbachev was the one that really pushed and followed through to end the Cold War. At least they could see it was getting them nowhere, while here we have created our own capitalist oligarchy mafia that ruined Russia and doesn't seem to be doing much to preserve our union.

I don't buy that Reagan won the Cold War, and he began this long attack on government. I agree with Bill Maher who said that Reagan was the first TEA-bagger ....

"Ronald Reagan was an anti-government, union-busting, race-baiting, anti-abortion, anti-gay anti-intellectual who cut rich people's taxes in half, had an incurable case of the military-industrial complex and said Medicare was socialism that would destroy our freedom. Sounds to me like he would fit in just fine."

And that while Reagan may have done "a few things" that modern Republicans wouldn't like, said Maher, he basically "wrote the playbook for them on every issue of consequence."



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 8, 2013 at 9:02 pm

"I don't buy that Reagan won the Cold War"

Then you don't want to consider reality. If Jimmy Carter had won in 1980, the Berlin Wall would still be standing. The Kremlin feared
Reagan, but not Carter. Gorby came to appreciate Reagan, because he understood that RR was the real deal, and he had to deal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shrub Farms
a resident of Woodside
on Jun 8, 2013 at 9:07 pm

Reagan "Spent a lot in the military" Yup. That spending, along with tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, tripled the national debt, despite 11 tax hikes on working Americans to try to pay for the welfare for the wealthy and defense contractors.

---> Reagan gave welfare to the ultra wealthy and the military industrial complex, while asking the poor and middle class to pay for it with 11 tax hikes on working Americans.

---> Reagan signed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY on working Americans, when he doubled payroll taxes

"I don't buy that Reagan won the Cold War" Neither does the CIA (see above)

Reagan "Medicare was socialism" - we actually have the record album of Ronny the Actor getting paid by the AMA to say this (yes, kids, old fashioned vinyl!) Web Link








Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

I Told My Mom She's Dying
By Chandrama Anderson | 11 comments | 2,439 views

Easy Living
By Sally Torbey | 11 comments | 2,417 views

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,725 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,168 views

Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 3 comments | 745 views