skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

President Obama Completes San Diego Visit For La Jolla Fundraiser

President Barack Obama has departed San Diego, where he attended a congressional fundraiser in La Jolla. Air Force One lifted off at MCAS Miramar and is en route to San Jose.

Air Force One touched down at MCAS Miramar just after 11 a.m. following a short flight from Los Angeles.

He greeted Marines and shook hands with members of their families, posed for photographs and spoke to San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer upon arriving at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar aboard Air Force One.

Obama was set to visit San Diego for approximately three hours today to attend a fundraiser at the private La Jolla home of Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs, one of the top contributors of Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

The $10,000-per-person luncheon will benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also is scheduled to attend.

Outside the fundraiser, two groups plan to rally along Torrey Pines Road.

Women Occupy San Diego is partnering with the Citizens Trade Campaign to rally against the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership and fast-track legislation that would rush the deal through Congress. TPP is a giant free trade deal between the U.S., Canada, and 10 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Across the street, an environmental group organized by is scheduled to rally in opposition to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, claiming it will increase greenhouse gas emissions and worsen the impacts of climate change.

Obama started his three-day California fundraising circuit on Wednesday in Los Angeles at the Bel Air home of Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn and his wife, Cindy.

Wednesday night, Obama attended the 20th anniversary gala of the USC Shoah Foundation at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza, where he was given an ambassador for humanity award by the organization’s founder, Steven Spielberg.

From San Diego, Obama will fly to San Jose, where he will participate in two more fundraisers.


Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 8, 2014 at 1:33 p.m. ― 2 years ago

I knew I felt an evil and cold presence just arrive in San Diego.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 8, 2014 at 2:45 p.m. ― 2 years ago

CaDef, that's the Romneys. Whenever they are in town to enjoy their beachfront mansion, it sends a cloud of evil over the city.

I agree with Obama on some things and not on others, but overall he has been far better than his predecessor "Dubya" and far better than the alternative the Republican party has offered up (i.e. Romney). I do have respect for John McCain, far more so than for Mitt Romney, but even he seemed to leave his moderate roots behind and gravitate towards the far right crazies when he was running.

Obama has passed healthcare reform, something sorely needed in this country and something that, even though it had a rocky roll-out, we are now seeing the tangible benefits.

He also ended two wars that went on far longer than they should have, one that should have NEVER been started in the first place (Iraq) and one that should have been a quick get in, throw out the Taliban for harboring the criminals responsible for 9-11, then get out.

Gitmo is still open and the NSA thing is a major concern of mine, but we are in the technology age and I think we would be dealing with this NSA stuff regardless of who was in power. Thank goodness Mr. Snowden brought this into the spotlight.

I also have to commend the President on his stance on gay rights.

He took a risk when he (led a little by Biden going first) became the first sitting president in history to openly embrace full gay marriage. At the time, it wasn't known if this would hurt him dramatically in terms of support. It ended up not hurting him and, I believe, actually helping him, but he took the risk nonetheless for coming out on the right side of equality and the right side indeed of history.

He, along with Mr. Holder, has started laying the seeds for major prison reform, I would have liked to have seen this done sooner and more aggressively, but I commend the recent actions in pardoning low-level drug offenders and finally having a central government that is showing interest in LESSENING the prison industrial complex, something almost unheard of in any other recent administration.

I also think Mr. Obama has done good things in Iran, though we don't hear about them much. Iran could EASILY have become our next military front, with all the hawks in congress and the pandering to Israel, but Obama saw an opportunity with the new Iranian leadership and an apparent shift in attitudes amongst the ruling clerics, and he has approached it with just the right amount of diplomacy and caution. Yes, it's an ongoing process, but he has effectively plugged a hole for now that I am quite confident would have been another full-scale war under a President Willard Romney.

With all this considered, I am happy to welcome President Obama to my city.

Overall, he has done many good things, and while not perfect, he is solid.

Please enjoy your short stay here Mr. President, and do come again - despite the haters, San Diego voted in your favor in both elections !

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 8, 2014 at 3:09 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Seriously who cares? What's the big deal? The worst failure of a president this nation has ever had arrived in San Diego?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'muckapoo1'

muckapoo1 | May 8, 2014 at 4:14 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Just another traffic jam for nothing. The leader of the baby-killing party has exited. Hope everyone enjoyed their possible salmonella laced chicken dinner.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 8, 2014 at 5:13 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Jean, I at least gave detailed reasons as to why I think Obama has been a good President.

You make a pretty hefty statement about him being the worst President in history?

Care to detail how you come to that conclusion?

We have had Presidents who had slaves, condoned government sanctioned racism and segregation, started unnecessary wars (Vietnam and Iraq) resigned in scandal, been impeached, been in such ill health they did nothing as close advisors pretended all was well, even a President who threw up on the Japanese PM, and yet you call Obama the worst President ever?

That is utter nonsense, it's just tea party chest thumping.

By any reasonable look at the Presidents, Obama is not anywhere near the bottom.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'devn6rock'

devn6rock | May 9, 2014 at 7:13 a.m. ― 2 years ago

Pecking duck, youve been decieved and brainwashed, if you want i can also

debate about why Mitt romney would be the better choice what do have against him?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'devn6rock'

devn6rock | May 9, 2014 at 7:16 a.m. ― 2 years ago

I alway like to.debate with all due respect to Mr.Obama

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 9, 2014 at 8:58 a.m. ― 2 years ago

devn6rock, yes I would like to see your summary on why Willard Romney would have been a better President.

Simply telling someone you think they are "brainwashed" and providing no tangible evidence is pretty intellectually dishonest.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 9, 2014 at 10:37 a.m. ― 2 years ago


I'm no fan of Romney, but he would have been better.

He has more executive experience and much more presidential gravitas. What you want is some who can convincingly say "keep calm and carry on." Obama has never been able to do that.

But the real reason why Romney would have been better was his connection to us. San Diego would have been the White House West and millions would have been injected into our local economy as a result.

Now all we have is Obama leeching millions out.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | May 9, 2014 at 11:55 a.m. ― 2 years ago

Washington D.C. is a cesspool that would've turned even Mother Theresa into a hypocritical war mongerer. Hell, D.C. managed to get Mitt Romney to dissociate himself from HIS OWN health care reform package which he, himself, had previously heralded as his signature legislative achievement. How anyone thinks he would've been a better president than Obama is a mystery. We truly deserve the government we have. Most of you just don't want to admit it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 9, 2014 at 12:19 p.m. ― 2 years ago


The people who vote for Democrats and Republicans deserve the government we have.

The rest of us deserve so much more.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 9, 2014 at 12:53 p.m. ― 2 years ago

If Romney were President, we would be in a full-scale war with Iran right now.

He made it clear in the debates his feelings on being "tough" with Iran, he also made it clear he believes Israel is our most important world ally and that he would pander to them, many in the Republican establishment have their hawkish eyes laser focused wanting to make this our next full-scale military experiment in that region, the same way they had done with Iraq.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | May 9, 2014 at 1:36 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Spot-on, Duck. CA DEF, I think you're right to question the dominance of the 2-party system. What makes us so sure that our present system of government is the best? Is choosing between the "lesser of 2 evils" the best we can do? Our system is antiquated and barely practical. We deserve what we get because we've accepted the absolute authority of men who've been dead for 200+ years and a book of collected fables written by people who didn't know North America even existed.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 9, 2014 at 3:25 p.m. ― 2 years ago


Why do you think we would be in a war with Iran? If Bush wasn't able to make it happen, I doubt Romney would.

What is more realistic is Romney being tougher with Russia. Perhaps not a war, but increased bloodshed from a US funded/armed/trained Ukrainian military.

But then he wouldn't have funded Al Qaeda rebels in Syria like Obama is doing. So pick your poison. US presidents love war. Period.


I agree. Give the states more power than the federal government (as it was originally intended) and you will see a more flexible, responsive, and fair democracy in America.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 10, 2014 at 12:57 a.m. ― 2 years ago

CADef: "Why do you think we would be in a war with Iran?"

I explained this already. During the campaign, Romney used bellicose rhetoric and nuanced threats against Iran hinting at military action; he pandered to Israel and Israel-lobbyist organizations in the U.S. who had made it clear they wanted direct war with Iran. While nobody can say for certain what someone not elected would have done if they had been elected, there is enough evidence in Romney's positions during the campaign to ascertain that military action against Iran would have been probably and a full-scale war would have been a real possibility.

If you sift through Mr. Romney's on-record statements regarding Iran, you see nothing encouraging diplomacy, peace or negotiation, but you see a great deal of chest-thumping, threats, and the same marching to war rhetoric offered by people leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 10, 2014 at 12:58 a.m. ― 2 years ago


CADef: "If Bush wasn't able to make it happen, I doubt Romney would. "

Bush got us into quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your question is why was he not able to launch us into Iran as well? I think that's painfully obvious - we barely had the resources to sustain the years of death and costs plundered in Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars which I will remind you President Obama ENDED. Not to mention, then congressman Obama OPPOSED the war in Iraq and voted against it, something I though you also were against. Why will you not give then congressman Obama credit for having the foresight to recognize the terrible idea of invading Iraq and voting against it at the time ?

It should also be noted that by UNNECESSARILY launching a war in Iraq (Which Obama voted AGAINST), Iran was able to spend years developing the nuclear program that everyone is so dismayed by today because they knew America was so committed to the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan that Iran could basically do whatever they wished knowing there would never be any substantial military retributions as the resources and focus were on these other two fronts.



What is more realistic is Romney being tougher with Russia. Perhaps not a war, but increased bloodshed from a US funded/armed/trained Ukrainian military.

Are you making things up in your mind? You claim there is no hard evidence of Romney's desire to launch war with Iran (which there is), but you are claiming Romney would have somehow magically resolved the Ukraine crisis in some form of non-existent limbo between being "tougher" than Obama but not actually tripping us into war?

That is speculatory nonsense and pure fantasy.

I'm so tired of this idiotic notion by conservatives that Obama is not being tought enough, they make these threats of wanting all sorts of quasi-military options but stop short of saying they want to launch a war.

Well, wake up my friend - "increased bloodshed from a US funded/armed/trained Ukrainian military" IS WAR!

I'm not even going to quote your Syria line because that falls under the same fantasy garbage as Iran and Ukraine - Obama is weak, Romney is strong and Romney has this "magic bean" that would allow us to be suspended in a no-man's land between war and peace where we are tougher but yet not quite in a war, but somehow getting arms in and all the world would magically fall into a peaceful state because Romney has more "gravitas" and the Grandpa Munster grey streaks above his sideburns somehow make him more distinguished and his tough talk would stop the evil empires from doing what they are doing unlike Obama's tough talk.


( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 10, 2014 at 12:58 a.m. ― 2 years ago

CADef, I respect many of your viewpoints because you take the politics out, but when it comes to world affairs you seem to attach yourself to the same sorry Republican talking points that are simply ridiculous. You think there is this 3rd column of existence between diplomacy and war that is purely made-up as a way to politically smear Obama.

You have these non-war options:

(1) Diplomacy and compromise

(2) Tough talk and condemnation

(3) Economic and political sanctions

(4) Building of coalitions with other nations to apply pressure

Obama has done all of these with the hot-spots around the world, and I'm sick and tired of hearing this rhetoric from Republicans that they would somehow do more without actually launching wars.

It's pathetic.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 10, 2014 at 1:05 a.m. ― 2 years ago

Obama is not "tough enough" with Iran.

Obama is not "tough enough" with Russia.

Obama is not "tough enough" with Syria.

America's downfall will be if and when one of these hillbilly idiots like Cruz/Rick Perry/Bachmann gets into office and then puts us in about a dozen wars at once.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 10, 2014 at 11:26 p.m. ― 2 years ago


Obama didn't vote against the Iraq war. He entered the Senate in 2005 and the vote to go to war with Iraq was held in 2002.

His first chance to vote against war funding came in April 2005 with S AMDT 464 "Future Military Funding for Iraq". Obama FAILED to vote.

Then a few days later HR 1268, an emergency funding bill which included massive funding for Iraq/Afghanistan. Obama voted YES.

Then again in in October with HR 2863 which detailed war funding for 2006. Obama voted YES.

Again in November with S 1042 for war funding. Obama voted YES.

Again in December with HR 2863 for war funding. Obama voted YES.

Then in March 2006 the vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Obama voted YES.

More war funding with HR 4939 in June. Obama voted YES.

Then came his first real chance to vote to end the war in Iraq with S AMDT 4442 which stated "Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the President to withdraw troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. You'd think he would join with Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Ted Kennedy, or even fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin in voting yes? Think again. Obama voted NO.

The exact same day, S AMDT 4442 came up for more war funding in 2007. Obama voted YES.

Then in 2007 when he realized he might want to run for President, he suddenly started voting for timelines to end the war in Iraq with HR 1591, S Amdt 2087, and S Amdt 2898.

But he didn't have the guts to cut off funding and failed to vote for 2008 war spending HR 1585.

After that he was in full campaign mode and rarely voted on anything.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 10, 2014 at 11:40 p.m. ― 2 years ago


I also never said there was no evidence for Romney wanting war with Iran. What I said was I doubted he ever could have pulled it off. He was just saber rattling and that's all it would have ever been.

Also never said Romney would have resolved Ukraine! I said he would have made it WORSE with MORE bloodshed! Please re-read my post.

Obama has done well in keeping out of Ukraine. I think he wants to do something, but he knows Putin is far too powerful.

But not so with Syria and Assad who is very weak. He is funding/arming/training the rebels which are comprised of many terrorists groups including Al Qaeda. My statement is 100% factual, Duck.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 11, 2014 at 2:32 a.m. ― 2 years ago

CADef: Thanks for fact checking me about Obama's vote re: Iraq. You are correct, he was not yet in Congress for the initial vote, but he did vote against continual funding in 2007. In in any event, that's not what I conveyed in my post above and I stand corrected now.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 12, 2014 at 10:46 a.m. ― 2 years ago

"What is more realistic is Romney being tougher with Russia. Perhaps not a war, but increased bloodshed from a US funded/armed/trained Ukrainian military."

CA OFF misses the old man's Cold War. I wonder being such an anti-spending guy, he makes exceptions for punitive measures.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 12, 2014 at 11:59 a.m. ― 2 years ago

What are you talking about Mission?

I guess you don't understand my point. I'll simplify it for you:

Bloodshed = bad
Funding the Ukrainian military = bad
Renewing the Cold War = bad

Get it?

I'm still the same loveable Jeffersonian anti-foreign entanglement, Libertarian anti-spending guy I've always been.

( | suggest removal )