Is it fair that Hillary gets free Secret Service protection?

[Alhena]

by virtue of her status as former first lady, but the other candidates like Obama (who is more at risk by virtue of his race, IMO) will have to pay for his own security from his campaign funds?

I don't begrudge Hillary's free protection whatsoever, but it seems to me that if she's going to be taking Secret Service along for her campaigning, the taxpayers should pay for the other candidates as well, both Democratic and Republican.

[virginia mountainman]

1. NO.

Not when she votes for more gun control, to take away MY, right to protect MYSELF, and family.

It really bugs me that those that push the hardest for Gun Control, have armed guards.

[TheDebbieDee]

22. If and when Barack Obama becomes the Democratic

nominee for President, he will also be entitled to Secret Service protection.......

[LostinVA]

113. Beat me to it

[elehhhhna]

2. Oh, slam Hil AND gun control all in one thread!

Yeah we are so stoopid here. Really.

[virginia mountainman]

11. Not really,

Not Slamming Hillery, just disagreeing with her on an Issue..

As for Gun Control... Yea, It was a SLAM.

I have seen gun control turn my true "blue" union organizing family almost completely "RED" over a couple of years in the mid 1990's

I am practically the only Democrat left in my immediate family now.

[bunkerbuster1]

15. And losing the WV blues--it's *Hilary's* fault?

If 2nd amendment hawks are stupid enough to imagine that they should vote against their own interests on account of what the right wing Wurlitzer has sold them, well... (shrug.)

[virginia mountainman]

19. Yea just like 1994...

Threw lots of seats away in the name of Gun Control..

Took us till 2006 to get it back.

Look at all the votes, and legislation that was passed in those 12 years, Yea, Threw it all away for a stupid "medium powered semi auto ugly rifle" ban, that in the end banned NOTHING. Heck the ban does not even EXIST anymore.

Lots of Pyrrhic victories.

[Donnachaidh]

57. uhhh -- here's a clue -- 2006 was NOT about GUN CONTROL

It was IRAQ. It was the WAR. DUH. :sarcasm:

[virginia mountainman]

87. Yea..

Mainly because a lot of good "Pro Civil Rights" Democrats ran, and got elected.

I refer again to Mr Webb, of Virginia, NRA "A" rated

[Oleladylib]

3. Hillary earned this right as a first lady..let it go..!!!!

You can't tie this up with a little bow..as the other candidates are not qualified because of their status....they were not first lady, first man or whatever...

[PresidentObama]

4. How much did the NRA....

....pay you to say that??

Who let the dogs out?

I would say HRC getting secret service is mostly unfair. Especially when the other candidates have to pay for their own security and protection.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Nothing

I am for ALL, the Bill of Rights. Not "Some"

[beaconess]

13. She gets it because she's a former first lady. If any other candidates are former first ladies,

they'll get it, too.

As it is, they'll get protection under the same law that Hillary does, when they qualify as viable candidates. If they feel that they have any special need for protection, they can request a Secret Service detail sooner than that, as Jesse Jackson did in 1984 and 1988 - and Reagan provided it.

Are you aware of any of the other candidates who are unhappy about not receiving protection or who have suggested that they need it? If not, what's the big deal?

[IndianaGreen]

27. Once Hillary announces for President she stops being former First Lady

and she should play in the same level field as all other candidates.

Hillary should pay for her Secret Service Protection!

What's next for the Hillaristas, claim sexism whenever a male candidate attacks her voting record?

[Donnachaidh]

30. bullshit

she's always going to be a former fist lady. She has every right to that protection.

[NYC Liberal]

54. What? How do you "stop being former First Lady"?

She was First Lady for 8 years. So, what, because she's running (or will run) for office, suddenly she was NEVER a First Lady?

former(a): (used especially of persons) of the immediate past; "the former president"; "our late President is still very active"; "the previous occupant of the White House"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"Former" isn't a title, it can't be "taken away."

[Donnachaidh]

67. what's next for the Hillary bashers -- complaining she spends too much on clothes?

Is she going to get ragged on because she spends more on her outfits and it isn't FAIR to the other candidates that can't afford the same designer outfits? :sarcasm:

I'm not a Hillary follower, but the arguments used here are beyond ridiculous.

[IndianaGreen]

80. Raising an issue about Mrs. Clinton is considered "bashing"

She is Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from New York, and as such she should be treated like any other candidate.

She is not the first woman candidate! The two I remember best was Shirley Chisholm and Margaret Chase Smith. They didn't use their marital status to an advantage.

[NYC Liberal]

82. Their martial status wasn't an issue in the way it is with Hillary.

Hillary's martial status, by LAW, affords her this "privilege." She is a former first lady.

[IndianaGreen]

86. That "privilege" is an issue when she is running for President

Why should we subsidize her protection while our preferred candidate(s) have to dig into their campaign pockets?

[NYC Liberal]

89. Major candidates get protection too, you know.

So Hillary won't be the only one out there with SS protection.

[IndianaGreen]

90. After the Convention is when SS protection is received or

at any time before that if the President orders the SS to do so.

[NYC Liberal]

91. Not quite.

Major candidates get protection priror to the convention, and the Sec. of the Treasury determines who the "major" candidates are.

[pnwmom]

111. It was not only her marital status. She had a job as First Lady, and

she did it well.

[bullimiami]

6. all of the former first ladies get them. i dont have a problem with it.

if obama is nominated he will get it too.

[beaconess]

7. ALL former First Ladies get SS protection. HRC is a former First Lady. End of story.

Is there ANYTHING Hillary bashers won't attack her for?

[Alhena]

21. I'm NOT bashing Hillary ...

I AM saying that her free protection gives her more money, which she WILL use, to buy campaign ads and the like. There should be a level playing field.

[beaconess]

58. No candidate has complained about this "unfairness," so why are you wasting your time

worrying about it?

[Donnachaidh]

62. straw man argument

Excuse me, but her following will give her more money to buy ads. It's not about the security. If you want a level playing field, try working towards publicly-funded elections.

[zulchzulu]

37. Exactly... Public Law 91-217 grants that right

Per Public Law 91-217, passed in 1970, Secret Service Uniformed Division police officers protect:
-the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other presidential offices
-the President and members of his immediate family
-the official residence of the Vice President at the US Naval Observatory in the District of Columbia
-the Vice President and members of his immediate family
-the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates as well as their spouses during election years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service

[beaconess]

64. SS protection is provided not just to the nominees, but to every major candidate

Whether a candidate is "major" is determined by a bipartisan group that includes the Speaker of the House and the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate.

In 2004, Kerry, Dean, and Edwards all got Secret Service protection after during the primaries. Ronald Reagan ordered the Secret Service to provide a security detail to Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 from Day One.

This "Hillary gets Secret Service protection and it's just not fair" is a non-issue.

[LostinVA]

115. Agreed

I said the other day that if HRC saved a bag of kittens from being drowned, she would somehow be bashed for it.

I haven't always agreed with everything HRC has done, but the spleen directed at her is very strange, espically when compared to other Dems with much less progressive ideas that get a much bigger pass (Senator Byrd, for example).

[KingFlorez]

8. It's fair

I think simply because so many right-wingers dislike her so much, her safety could potentially be at risk.

[liberalnurse]

9. Absolutely!

I'm surprised there are posters who, for their own personal position on gun issues would find it appropriate to remove Secret Service Protection from the former First lady.

How vain is that!

[virginia mountainman]

12. NO..

Just wishing she would wholeheartedly support MY right to protection.

[bunkerbuster1]

16. Do you want a pony for Christmas as well?

Try growing up a little.

[virginia mountainman]

20. Funny..

I have Ponies.

[Donnachaidh]

28. I wish she'd come out against the Iraq war a long time ago

This of course doesn't give ME the right to take away her SS protection.

[virginia mountainman]

31. Who said I was for taking it away?

I just stated that it was UNFAIR.

[Donnachaidh]

59. grow up

she's a former first lady. She gets SS protection. Don't like the rule -- do something to change it.

[beaconess]

70. WAAAHHH WAAAAHH!!!

Get over it. The other candidates seem to have.

[PresidentObama]

10. I guess the first lady arguement....

Is ok by me.

It does seem unfair to a degree, but it is her right and privilege as former first lady.

.....Oh and don't forget guns, guns, guns :)

Seriously, who let the dogs out?

[JuniperLea]

14. This kind of post makes me wonder if the poster knows anything at all

About American government.

She's a former first lady. It's fair.


:eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

18. it is fair..

But when she give support to the crusades against folks just wanting the ability to defend themselves....

It does not look good..

I, will run into this argument, when I go out, and try to get people to vote. In my area, IT IS A VERY BIG DEAL.

We are just now shedding the "Gonna take your guns away" image. Look at what "MY" senator Jim Webb did in my home state of Virginia..

A couple of people screaming for more Gun Control on the national level could undo lots of these gains in the next election.

Let the Repukes, like Bloomberg take away the rights, so we can truly be the "Pro Choice" and "Pro Rights" party

[Donnachaidh]

17. she WAS first Lady

And there has never been SS assigned to candidates. This seems like an awfully petty argument. Especially when you throw in that little *race* issue. Can you please tell me the last time an african-american candidate was gunned down in the street?

[Alhena]

23. There has never been a serious African-American candidate

for president of the USA until Obama. That is simply a fact. All it takes is one skinhead loser looking to make a name for himself among the Aryan Nations and we will be deprived of the man I feel is the greatest hope this country has right now.

And once again, I did NOT SAY that Hillary's protection should be withdrawn. Nor am I bashing Hillary- I like her fine. I'm saying other candidates should get it as well.

[Donnachaidh]

25. NO they shouldn't

They never HAVE had SS protection. There is NO need for it now.

[beaconess]

69. If Obama thinks he needs protection, he can request a Secret Service detail.

As has been repeatedly explained, any candidate who thinks they need Secret Service protection can get it.

Why are you so worked up over this bullshit issue?

[NYC Liberal]

79. "there has never been SS assigned to candidates" - What are you talking about?

SS protection is assigned to all "major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates" and nominees.

http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml

[IndianaGreen]

24. We can make this a campaign issue and force Hillary to pay for SS protection

Why? Because she is no longer a former First Lady but an active candidate for President, and she should be on the same level playing field as all the other candidates.

[Donnachaidh]

29. that's bullshit too

As a former first lady she has a right to that protection.

[sallyseven]

39. Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Johnson, Betty Ford, Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Bush

All have SS protection. Shoud they give it up? You sound more like the right wing nuts out there.

[IndianaGreen]

41. None of them are running for President

Or should Hillary get preferential treatment based on her marital status? That's sexism at its worse!

Hillary should pay for her Secret Service protection the moment she announces she is a candidate for President, or she should hire her own bodyguards!

[pnwmom]

48. She gets that treatment because she is a former First Lady.

And the Congress has determined that all former Presidents and First Ladies deserve this protection.

She doesn't lose this right because she decides to run for Senator, or President, or anything else.

[IndianaGreen]

65. She should pay for it once she becomes a candidate

Put her on the same level playing field as all the other candidates.

[Donnachaidh]

56. umm -- I'm not the one saying she needs to give up the protection

I think she's earned that right as a first lady. I hope you meant your comment for someone else.

[terisan]

32. Former First Lady Status Can't Be Changed

No matter what else she does in life, it doesn't negate former first lady status. I don't know whether the law allows for her to continue to receive protection if she were to divorce the former president.

[IndianaGreen]

40. She wants her cake and eat it too! How quaint!

Hillary should be treated like all the other candidates. Once she announces for President, she must be made to pay for her Secret Service protection. Why have the other candidates pay out of their own pocket for bodyguards, as Obama will certainly have to do, while Hillary is having the taxpayers pay for hers?

If Hillary wants to be treated with equality, we should also be held to the same standards as all the other candidates.

[pnwmom]

49. She's being treated like all other former First Ladies.

That's fine with me.

[IndianaGreen]

68. She will be running as Senator Hillary Clinton, not as Clinton's wife

She is trying to have it both ways!

[paulk]

104. she's not "trying" to do anything

you make it sound like it's her decision. She doesn't have a say in it - it's the law.

[pnwmom]

106. Why are you picking on her instead of Al Gore? Neither of them

has announced yet, and both are entitled to Secret Service Protection.

Nothing significant will change. She already has protection wherever she goes, and she's been raising millions for the party on her travels. She is entitled to the protection as all former First Couples are. She is also entitled to run for President, like any U.S. citizen over the age of 35.

[NYC Liberal]

53. If she were to divorce Bill, her protection would end.

[pnwmom]

46. "She is no longer a former First Lady." That's a crock. Of course she is.

And always will be, no matter what she does in the future.

[beaconess]

74. YOU go make it a campaign issue. The rest of us will focus on things that really matter

[terisan]

26. Bush Family protection

How many people in the extended Bush family currently receive full-time body guard protection and what is it costing us?

I understand that enormous protection is being planned for GW Bush after he leaves office.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/296244_bush18.html

[Donnachaidh]

33. 16.5 MIL in protection for bush after he leaves office

But why is it that some people here piss and moan about Hillary? Why is is suddenly an issue about gun rights?

This whole thread is ludicrous.

[ElizabethDC]

34. Of course it's fair

I don't know why this is even a question. She receives Secret Service protection because she's a former first lady, not because she's a senator or a potential presidential candidate. Hers is a unique situation, but just because of that doesn't mean that other candidates should be entitled to free protection that they wouldn't have otherwise received. Besides, doesn't a candidate receive secret service protection once he gets the nomination anyway?

[beaconess]

72. Major candidates get protection long before the convention - nomination isn't required

And any candidate who feels that they are particularly vulnerable can request and receive protection whenever necessary.

[ElizabethDC]

97. Thanks, I thought it was something like that, but I wasn't sure. n/t

[PresidentObama]

35. If Gore ran, wouldn't he get SS?

If so, where is the bitching and moaning about that?

Not that I'm trying to drag Gore into this arguement, because I like Gore.

It seems fair. Maybe somewhat unfair to the other candidates, but it is her right as former first lady.

[beaconess]

76. No - he wouldn't unless there were a greater concern for his safety.

[pnwmom]

107. I read that he does have Secret Service Protection.

[Diamonique]

36. Yes I think it's fair

We always provide SS protection to former first families. Campaigns don't fall under that category, and I don't think the procedures should be changed just because one of the candidates is a former first lady or a minority.

[sallyseven]

38. Boy some of you have such hatred in your hearts

for Hillary. Just remember that hatred is debilitating to the hater. It doesn't affect the hated one. So get over it. Try , if you must, hating GB, Newt, McCain, They are worthless.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Hillary wants to have it both ways!

Give me equal consideration for President because as a woman I am entitled to it, but don't hold me to the same standards and scrutiny as the other candidates because I am a woman. What kind of sexist crock is that?

[Diamonique]

43. Because she's a woman?

Where did that come from? This has nothing to do with gender.

[pnwmom]

47. What do you mean, "don't hold me to the same standards and scrutiny as

the other candidates"?


She's not saying that.

[IndianaGreen]

88. Remember when the MSM complained that Gore was mean to Bush?

I expect Hillary's consiglieri James Carville to resort to the same tactics during the primary debates. Carville is using Rove's masterplan for the 2000 GOP nomination campaign. Carville's attack on Dean's DNC chairmanship right after our big victory in 06 is part of that masterplan.

[Tellurian]

99. What Hatred and Bile on Christmas Eve!

Shame on YOU, Indy!

Take a Chill Pill. Your remarks are over the Top!

[pnwmom]

44. Give me a break. Nancy Reagan gets protection.

So do all former Presidents and their wives.

And I think there are more Hillary haters out there than Obama haters.

[Clark2008]

45. Um, yes, it is fair.

I'm not a huge Hillary supporter - in fact, I think an HRC nomination would cause the Dems to lose in a landslide - but I still think as the former first lady (which, btw, is the ONLY reason she's considered the front runner) she should be provided SS protection. It's the law.

[ISUGRADIA]

50. How many candidats actually NEED security?

Candidates normally do not have security details or need them.

[IndianaGreen]

63. I lived through the Bobby Kennedy assassination

which happened shortly after Dr. King's. It is always the progressive candidates that end up being killed.

[beaconess]

77. You mean like George Wallace? He's the only candidate who was shot since Bobby.

[IndianaGreen]

85. He didn't die

unlike Bobby and Dr. King.

[Karenca]

51. Of course it's fair. .nt

[NYC Liberal]

52. Is Obama a former First Spouse? No. But Hillary is.

And she is getting the same treatment and protection as every other former First Lady gets.

Doesn't matter if she runs for office or what.

[IndianaGreen]

60. It does matter, for it gives Hillary an unfair competitive advantage over the field

of candidates.

If a candidate like Edwards or Obama wanted protection, they would have to pay for it out of their own pockets, and rightly so. The cost will come from campaign funds in all probability.

Hillary should pay for that protection once she becomes a candidate, or else that's money that the taxpayers will have to pay, giving Hillary the ability of not having an expenditure that everyone else has.

This is why Hillary would have an unfair competitive advantage over the field of candidates. Once she becomes a candidate, she should pay for protection. We need a level playing field for all the candidates, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, OR marital status.

[NYC Liberal]

66. She can relinquish protection at any time, so probably the best thing to do

if we really want all of the candidates to be on an equal playing field is to ratchet up the pressure on her to give up her taxpayer-funded protection when she runs.

The other candidates might make an issue out of it as well.

[IndianaGreen]

71. She should reimburse the government for the Secret Service detail

or pay for her own private security. Considering how expensive Secret Service protection is, she would probably opt for private security.

[NYC Liberal]

73. She's the last one to get lifetime protection anyway. They changed the law in 97

Whent the law was originally written, no other First Lady had run for office (let alone President), so it was not an issue.

Obviously, that's changed. So like I said, she might be forced to relinquish that protection (or pay for her own) if the political pressure is turned up and attention is focused on it.

Oh - and "major presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees" get protection by law too.

[mtnsnake]

105. You should pay higher taxes for spouting more than your fair share of propaganda

about Hillary. yeah.

[pnwmom]

110. Hillary is NOT at the top of my list now, but if any candidates follow

your suggestion of making that an issue against her, they'll lose my support.

[NYC Liberal]

112. I agree she has a right to it - as ALL (since the law was enacted) former First Ladies

have had it. The "solution" -- if you (in general) object to it, is to get her to give it up herself.

Not saying I'd agree with doing that tho.

[Donnachaidh]

75. here's a surprize -- hasn't she already run as a candidate with SS protection?

I don't recall anyone whinging on about that. Where was the outrage THEN? What is NEW here?

[IndianaGreen]

81. She was safely tucked away in New York then

Now she wants to compete in the most expensive Presidential race in history, but she wants the taxpayers to continue to pay for her very expensive and extensive Secret Service protection.

[cmkramer]

55. FWIW

The Clintons will be the last presidential couple to get lifetime Secret Service protection. Starting with Bush II, it ends ten years after the president leaves office.

[MaineDem]

61. Good grief!!!

Of course it's fair.

This is reaching...and more Hillary bashing.

Thanks for playing.

:eyes:

[beaconess]

78. Given this kind of irrational Hillary-bashing coming from her own side,thank GOD she has protection!

[IndianaGreen]

83. For what is worth

Hillary will make a better President than any Republican running against her. The problem is that she won't win, and she will hurt local candidates in my state (where we are trying to get rid of a gnome we have for governor) because she would be such a drag on the Democratic ticket.

We have better candidates than Hillary, and some of them can actually win in November.

If that's Hillary bashing, then we need more of it to prevent a fiasco at the polls.

[virginia mountainman]

92. Thats the problem here

She will polarize issues to the point that good local and state dems will take a beating.

Many folks here are willing to give us a second chance, when it comes to gun RIGHTS. If ANY candate stirs the pot for gun control too much....

THEIR WILL, be a backlash...

We may loose power for another 12 years.

[IndianaGreen]

93. We need a Democrat as Commander-in-Chief to end Bush's wars

but Hillary will not win, and she will hurt our candidates at the local level. This may well be the reason why there is panic that she might win the nomination.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

108. I think your political preference against Hillary is what is driving

your point of view on this matter.

I happen to prefer Obama myself, at this point in time, but I think that this is not a fair issue to use against Hillary.

[against all enemies]

84. Yes, get over it.

[Tiggeroshii]

94. I think by law, as soon as Obama announces as a candidate for prez

he will get free secret service. Post Bobby-Kennedy sorta thing, I think. Somebody should correct me if I am wrong, cause I'm not positive.

[IndianaGreen]

95. I am not sure that he does automatically

which is what gave rise to this thread.

[HuffleClaw]

96. of course it is.

all former 'first' families get protection.

[Eurobabe]

98. Yes, she's a former first lady. n/t

[Infinite Hope]

101. Look at totality of the circumstances. She's Former First Lady, Senator, and Presidential Candidate.

That makes her a likely target from many angles. I have no problem with her having security.

[IndianaGreen]

102. Security is not the issue, who pays for it is.

Why should other candidates pay for their security out of their campaign coffers while Hillary has the taxpayers foot her bills?

[Infinite Hope]

103. For the reasons stated.

Taxpayers can't pay for everyone's security. However, traditionally they do pay for the security of those who are the most likely potential-targets.

When other candidates' security concerns rise to the level of making them a likely potential-target, they too will receive security as that would not be unprecedented.

[pnwmom]

109. That's an issue for Congress to worry about, not Hillary.

But the answer is that the other candidates do not have the special risk that Congress has deemed the former First Couple to have.

I think a better question is why should Nancy Reagan need Secret Service protection more than Obama. She's certainly at no special risk.

[Radical Activist]

114. Is it fair that Hillary gets regular death threats?

No, but she does. Your post comes of as being a little petty.

[LostinVA]

116. Hit-and-run post, gang

And, we fall for it every time.

[Moderator]

117. Locking

Flamebait.