Your claim, you prove it. i can't prove a negative, but it should be easy for you to show that only foreign dignitaries are allowed in the Blair House if that were indeed the case.
This doesn't even make sense. The tradition is that the president-elect can stay in the Blair house. It isn't that he can stay there as early as he desires.
If I showed you a list of my winning football picks would you assume I never lost?
Which proves what, exactly?
What other links? You have shown zero, nada, zilch as far as evidence goes that the Blair House is to be used exclusively for foreign dignitaries.
Maybe, maybe not. But it was definitely tacky!
Any evidence Bush used the Blair House for fundraising events?
How so? According to a CNN correspondent:
5 days is the tradition, not "whenever he wants".
It is not limited to foreign dignitaries. You keep making this claim, yet have provided no evidence for it.
No, it doesn't.
Nope.
And Bush is making it available for Obama. Just not at as early as he'd like.
How do you know it's not being used for government business? There is other government business besides hosting foreign dignitaries. For all you know he's having his parents over one last time.
I think I did prove that the Blair House is restricted to foreign dipomacy under the State Department* using deductive logic. BTW, read again what I said about fund accounting. When was the last time the Supreme Court just grabbed space from the CIA, and the CIA grabbed space from the the Treasury Dept. under the reasoning that everything funded is govt. business?
In regard to the CNN correspondent, I think he was either quoting the Bushes or taking their statement on face value without vetting it. That's why I brought up the fact that the Clintons moved in on Dec 7th. That disproved that January 15th move in "tradition" date.
I'd give more examples -- but the other move-in dates being cited on the web ( Eisenhower (shortly after the election) and the Reagans (early January IIRC) ) are not providing any sources that I can link to.
* The exception to the Blair House being used for foreign diplomacy under the State Department is accomodating future and past presidents. That is a stretch, but its a documented one. Since visits by past and future presidents are rare but yet can have a direct impact on foreign diplomacy -- I would agree that there is a certain amount of logic under that stretch.
But FWIW, in the future, past presidents will be accomodated at the Towbridge House according to the Blair House splash page.
My issue with how the Bushes' handled the Obama's request is that they appeared to be acting like dicks. The Whitehouse spokesperson gave a reason that didn't hold up under the slightest bit of questioning or logic. I don't think that this is a matter that should be left up to a president's whim for what I think are personal reasons.
That's why I said that I think it would be a good idea for Congress to pass a law (and not rely on anyone's interpretation of "tradition" ) and arrange to have future presidents and vice presidents accomodated at a secure location in the DC area shortly after the national election. I originally said November 5, but I think something like November 12th would be OK too. The Blair House is ideal, and during the transition time between presidents, foreign policy isn't usually being conducted anyway.
Funds have to be expended to maintain the Blair House anyway. The president and VP have very high security needs for themselves and thier immediate family. It would be easier for the Secret Service to carry out their duties at a secure place like the Blair House.
