I get confused... So where exactly is this line? I understand that when the US Space Shuttle blows up that it's a national tragedy and should be recognized by the President and Federal Government who funds it. I understand that when the US Trade Center was attacked on US Ground by Foreign Terrorists that it is a national tragedy and should also be recognized. But when does the US President need to go to the site of a tragedy such as this unless it was to take advantage of other opportunities?
Seems fishy to me. How quickly did the US President respond to the Columbine shootings (honestly couldn't find it after a google search)? How about the many fatal bus crashes involving students? There was one back in Indianapolis fairly recently, and I don't believe he responded to that tragedy. A trip to Penn State to show sympathy for all those boys molested? How about for the 4-year old kid that drowned in a pond over the weekend in a neighboring county? The Colorado shootings...Tragedy? Yes! Sympathy needed? YES! Trip and visit on US Tax Payers' dime during an election year? Definitely debatable.
My opinions of the man changed considerably since his election. I figured he would be alright if he could at least attempt to bring about some change as he campaigned. Once in office, I realized just how abusive he has become of the presidential powers, how little he cares for the average American, and just how irresponsible he is with the federal government and it's money. I have to agree that this is simply an opportunity seized to help him try to get re-elected.
You have to give him credit for a little smarts... after all, he didn't visit Texas after the murder and injury of the lesbian teens to promote his stand on same-sex marriage. Probably figured that a) there are no opportunities to gain votes in Texas and b) would probably never have made it back to DC after that visit...