The only reason that it is an issue at all is that President Obama is in the midst of an unprecedented move on the auto industry, preaching to the masses how we have to tighten our belts due to the economic conditions, conserve gasoline, move to tiny little cars....but he does not lead by example.
Um, excuse me? A date night in the heart of one of the country's largest cities sends a message counter to the message that we must conserve gasoline or move to smaller cars? How?
It's true he's not taking public transportation, but that's for security reasons. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
The Obamas are city people by temperament, and I doubt they're trying to send a specific pro-city message, but to say they are setting a bad example by going out to dinner and the theater in a big city when the message is supposed to be reducing our reliance on fossil fuel and the car culture in general makes no sense at all.
kathykattenburg
· 6 months ago
This was a dumb move by the White House all the way around.
Oh my sweet effin' god. What is the big deal? Barack Obama has done more in his first 100 days to help Americans struggling in this economy than George W. Bush or any other president for that matter has since FDR. So why would I, or anyone, begrudge him a date night with his wife in NYC? It's not taking anything away from me.
I would have been angered by this if Obama had done this trip at taxpayer expense, but he didn't. And Jim Treacher's excuse that Bush 43 "always worked" on his vacations is so much garbage. He said he worked, but even if he did, that means he had the right to charge me to go do half an hour of work at his ranch and hang out on the porch the rest of the time? Treacher's logic about Bush vacationing on the public dime being okay because he "didn't castigate the wealthy" is perverted. That's the whole point, that he "didn't castigate the wealthy." Everything he did was for the wealthy! Taking more vacations than any other president in modern history, at taxpayer expense, when most Americans are struggling to pay bills, is more heinous because he did everything he could to help the wealthy, not less.
I already know that Barack Obama is a very wealthy man -- as are most of our elected leaders in Washington. Taking his wife to the theater and dinner afterward in Washington, D.C. instead of New York City doesn't change that. And as far as I am concerned, he and Michelle can go to the theater, have dinner at swanky restaurants, etc., etc., all they want as long as I'm not paying for it and as long as he's doing his job for me and other Americans like me. And he is. He's not perfect, but he's a damn sight better than his predecessor.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
CStanley--
If the relative number of days in office invalidates my comparison, why doesn't it also invalidate Jazz's comparison?
Honestly, everyone knows George Bush took a lot of vacations, right? But when Obama takes a weekend off, that is to say a Saturday and Sunday off like people normally do, suddenly a bunch of so-called conservatives freak out about it.
tjproudamerican
· 6 months ago
This is a stupid issue. The president of the United States has the right to a life. Because we are a nation where nobody famous is safe, we protect the president. That means Jets and jet fuel and motorcades.
An abortion doctor was slaughtered in his church today. Obama cannot travel light. It is not fair to the brave women and men of the Secret Service. As president, the more he gets out, whether Broadway Plays or church or soccer games, the better. It does not make him a hypocrite to want to protect the planet and live as full a life as he can and allow the Secret Service to do their job.
I am a lifelong liberal and member of the Democratic party, and I regret that we live in a nation of murderers. But I do not begrudge any famous person the protection from the kind of lunatic haters we spawn. I want Dick Cheney protected, I want Rush Limbaugh protected, and I want Obama protected. I also want him and his family and all famous people and their families to live a full life.
I think the petty carping on Obama is what passes for thinking in too many conservative circls. Obviously, Daniel Larison of Eunomia and other true consrvative thinkers are not going to play pretend gotcha, but the rest of you are a very sad and hateful lot:
Obama puts mustard on his cheeseburger. Obama went to a Broadway Play.
You are pathetic and I hope you get lots and lots of coverage because despite all the crazy people who shoot people in church, America is a great land and we are a great people. The more you show how petty you are in pretend gotcha's the more people think of Republicans as the political party not to support.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
Bush might have "shattered all previous records for presidential vacation time" -- not that they were really vacations, because the president takes his office with him wherever he goes -- but not while simultaneously castigating the wealthy for their selfish excess, and insisting at every turn that we need to completely change our entire society because of the phantom menace of global warming. As usual, Jazz is sloppy and discordant.
Dr J
· 6 months ago
It worked out better than Lincoln's night at the theater.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
I declare Dr J the winner of this thread!
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
I can't believe this is controversial.
At all.
baseballmaven
· 6 months ago
The only reason that it is an issue at all is that President Obama is in the midst of an unprecedented move on the auto industry, preaching to the masses how we have to tighten our belts due to the economic conditions, conserve gasoline, move to tiny little cars....but he does not lead by example.
What makes this problematic is that it's just another example of the "do as I say not as I do" attitude of this administration, and it's starting to smack of elitism and classism to me.
EEllis
· 6 months ago
You know I don't take the press when I go on a date.
tjproudamerican
· 6 months ago
I think we need new descriptors for our political culture.
"Petty" has lost its meaning, as Mr. Shaw amply demonstrates here.
What actual difference did this trip to NYC make? If Obama had stayed in Washington are you seriously arguing that things would be different?
I am disgusted with these kinds of complaints. It s good for a president to get out and see a Broadway Play. It is good for Broadway and NYC for a president to treat a night out in NYC as a special event.
I love Moderate Voice. Moderate Voice is the last place I would expect to see someone write something so foolish and so partisan.
I hope Mr. Shaw's essay here follows him as an example of the kind of thinker and writer he is. "Petty"? Yes, but worse than petty.
CStanley
· 6 months ago
To EElilis' point, I do think that Obama's outings are a lot more public and seem somewhat contrived to give a 'cool' image- however, I'm just as inclined to look at it as a difference in personality. W's forays were mostly to Crawford because he's pretty much an outdoorsman and that's how he took his relaxation, while the Obama's are urban socialites. The latter is probably more costly to the public, but I'm not inclined to pinch pennies over the recreation of POTUS.
On the hypocrisy issue, I do think the Dems who criticized Bush own that. The GOP who now point out Obama's recreational outings are mainly pointing out the hypocrisy, not saying that this should be a big deal but just saying that there's a double standard since many of Obama's supporters didn't think that Bush should have had any downtime or enjoyment during his tenure. Now, if anyone is truly saying that Bush should have had all the vacation time he wanted but Obama should not get away from the job, those folks are hypocrites too- but my take on it is that people are calling out the hypocrisy just like Dems who criticize family values GOP politicians who get caught up in sex scandals (they don't necessarily mean that the sex scandal is a big deal, but they point out the hypocrisy involved when the GOP supporters ignore what they otherwise would criticize.)
CStanley
· 6 months ago
Just one more thought, having read the comment about pettiness. Besides the comparison to the criticisms of Bush's vacation time, I think there is an issue of presidents calling for shared sacrifice. Bush was RIGHTLY criticized, in my opinion, for putting the country on war footing in many aspects but not leading us toward the mindset of sacrifice. I think there is a similar, somewhat legitimate issue here.
Of course in both cases there's also a counterargument- Bush's "Annoy the terrorists, go shopping" advice was a bit silly but did have an underlying point that we shouldn't alter our lives out of fear. And similarly, there's a school of thought during a recession that people who can spend, should be encouraged to spend and consume. Obama seems to be sending mixed messages on that one (his Las Vegas dustup and attempt at reversal, for instance.)
CStanley
· 6 months ago
Ugh, terrible joke, Dr-J!
Jazz
· 6 months ago
Even though we changed comment engines a couple of times, Google is fairly comprehensive. I wonder.. yes, I do indeed wonder.. might it be instructive or interesting to do a search on the names of some of our more liberal commentors here and some words like "Bush - Crawford - vacation" and find out exactly how loudly you were defending his vacations in the past? Hrmmm...
From my comment to Michael this morning...
My wife and I both work in self-employed arenas, at least in part. We too have to set up "date night" and use that exact term for it. We sometimes take in a show, a movie or a play, and usually dinner as well. I think it's great. However, when we go out we take our own car, which we pay for. We pay for the gas, the insurance and everything else. Nobody shuts down several blocks of mid-town Manhattan so that we may pass by unmolested, safe and on schedule. We do not ask others to foot the bill for two plane loads of my assistants, co-workers and aides who need to follow my every step, not to mention a bunch of photogs and reporters.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
I'm just not really seeing any sensible basis for accusations of hypocrisy.
1--I don't think taking a weekend trip is the moral equivalent of weeks and weeks (and weeks and weeks [and still more weeks]) of vacation. Let alone all those weeks and weeks of taxpayer-bill-footed assistant travel to another time zone.
2--If the Obamas went to the theater in Washington DC, traffic in Washington DC would have to be shut down the same as in Manhattan. Or the same as it would have to be shut down on whatever rural roads in Texas Mr Bush traveled (where it might possibly be more difficult for the locals to find an alternative route?).
Ryan
· 6 months ago
Jazz: I'm guessing there are not thousands, if not millions of people in the world who want you dead. I don't think it would be a good idea to chain Obama to his desk for four years, either.
DaGoat
· 6 months ago
Eh, not a big deal. It does have a little "let them eat cake" feel to it. though.
matttbastard
· 6 months ago
Worst. Post. Ever. When did Richard Cohen's sockpuppet start slumming at TMV?
tjproudamerican
· 6 months ago
Kudos Matt!!!!
This is Richard Cohen-esqe. I hope all these petty people and Mr Shaw himself get remembered for criticizing a president for going to see a Broadway Play.
And while the hypocrisy angle is a great Talking Point, President Bush took nearly 1,000 days at Camp David and Crawford. President Bush averaged 120 some days away from the White House a year and he started and waged an unnecessary war.
Mr. Shaw should have this essay mentioned at the top of his biography so people will know what kind of man he is. Maybe Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cohen can write a book together.
baseballmaven
· 6 months ago
Ahh, it's not the vacation time or the fact that President Obama wants to take the First Lady out on the town--that would be fine if he weren't continually chiding us about driving SUVs or turning on our lights...it's a matter of wanting the President to lead by example, not have a "do as I say not as I do" paternalistic attitude. That's where the hypocrisy comes in, not in the fact that he is taking time off.
I don't think that this is comparable to Bush being away from the White House at either Camp David or at Crawford, both of which locations are working locations anyhow. Plus, Bush wasn't taking over the auto industry and handing it to the unions, while shafting other investors who hold stock in their retirement funds from GM or Chrysler (to the tune of 40% vs 10%); Bush wasn't opposed to drilling for oil in America--so his use of Presidential planes didn't rise to the hypocritical.
Don't tell me to drive a smart death car (and by the way, don't write me off as an SUV nut--I drive a pzev Accord) and then jet around on a Gulfstream
CStanley
· 6 months ago
I don't think taking a weekend trip is the moral equivalent of weeks and weeks (and weeks and weeks [and still more weeks]) of vacation.
Bush's time at Crawford and Camp David was much more in the traditional mold of presidents like FDR who operated out of the Little White House in GA during much of his presidency. They were working vacations. He hosted heads of state at both locations.
You can certainly argue whether or not presidents should do that, but it's really something different that Obama is doing. I saw him quoted one time saying that he deliberately wanted to get out more and be more involved in the social scene (he was actually saying this in regard to boosting Washington DC as a desirable social scene, which wouldn't explain a trip to NYC though.) But he and others also make the argument that a president should be among the people more and not in a bubble. It remains to be seen how that will work out for him in terms of public opinion, I guess. It's a reasonable premise, but arguable as to how possible it is given the expense and the turmoil that it causes because of security needs.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
CStanley--
I still don't see the basis for accusations of hypocrisy.
CStanley
· 6 months ago
Jazz already mentioned it, GS- google "Bush Crawford vacation" to see just how loudly various members of the left complained- and although you seem to make a distinction on amount of time, I pointed out that he wasn't vacationing all that time. Besides, this Obama trip is hardly a one-off- he's been all over the DC social scene and has hosted Wed night parties in the WH for celebs. As a percentage of his time in office, I doubt it compares favorably to Bush's weeks of brush clearing and mountain bike riding over the course of eight years.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
CStanley--
What I see is a double standard--One weekend for Obama is equal to all of Bush's vacation days.
By the way, the first story that came up when I Googled "Bush Crawford vacation" was this from CBS, tallying the number of days Bush spent on vacation at Camp David (487 days over 149 trips there) and Crawford (490 days over 77 trips).
The main point you get is that Bush took a lot of vacation days, which I think everyone knows. Obama takes a weekend and it supposed to be the equivalent of all that?
I confess I don't know anything about the Obama's socializing inside DC, but I don't think that's very equal to loading up Air Force One and jetting off to Texas--or Manhattan.
It seems to me that when Obamas host parties at the White House, no assistants get flown around on the taxpayer's dime and no public traffic gets shut down, so I don't see that as the basis for complaint. (Just the opposite, shouldn't it be the basis for praise?) Also, I have to guess the Bushes hosted White House parties attended by celebs.
baseballmaven
· 6 months ago
Sorry, George, but your logic doesn't apply--not only because of the invalidity of comparing days on vacation over 2920 days vs 140 days, but also because the point isn't the time off; it's the profligate use of jet fuel, limos, secret service suvs, and so on by Pres. O (think of the Chicago outing and several other 1 day /evening junkets to "town halls" where he does his post election campaigning since becoming POTUS, all the while excoriating the public for our use of cars that are bigger than clown cars, etc.
CStanley
· 6 months ago
GS, I don't see how you ignore the relative number of days in office. Obama just passed his 100 day mark. We really won't know how the percentage of time compares until he's in office considerably longer, so I don't see how people can get a pass for hypocrisy (if they felt Bush was wrong to take off) on that basis.)
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
CStanley--
Let me do a few back-of-the-envelope style calculations for you.
George Bush was President for 8 years. A year has 365 days. So, George Bush was President for 8 x 365 = 2920 days.
According to the link I gave above, he took 487 vacation days in Camp David and 490 vacation days in Crawford. That's 487 + 490 = 977 vacation days.
977 vacation days divided by 2920 equals 33% of his Presidency spent on vacation.
I'm sure he worked on some of those days. But I also remember him spending some vacation days in Kennbunkport, where his father owns some property. So maybe the actual number of vacation is higher?
977 / 2920 = 0.3345.
Obama has been President for about 140 days. He took yesterday and today off.
2 / 140 = 0.0142.
Rounding up--even though I was nice enough to round down for Mr Bush--that's 2%.
2% for Obama as opposed to 33% for Bush.
Now, I haven't been keeping track of Obama's vacation days. Maybe he took another week, which would bring him up to 9 days.
9 / 140 = 0.0642.
That would be up to 6% for Obama.
As I say, these are back of the envelope calculations. Someone might double check them and find them wrong, someone might prefer a completely different set of numbers.
In my first comment here, I said I couldn't believe this was controversial. And I still can't. And yet, here we are, nearly 20 comments later.
If somebody dislikes Obama, they'll be likely to see bad faith in his actions. They'll see this as being elite (even though owning a ranch in Texas might also be elite). They'll see this as adding to the deficit (even they didn't complain about Bush's many trips to Texas as adding to the deficit).
Sorry, CStanley, but this issue (is that what it is?) is a loser for you.
Keep banging away if you like, though.
I'm enjoying it.
CStanley
· 6 months ago
GS- I'm only hammering away because you're throwing in highly rebuttable points, and in almost all situations where I take part in a discussion I find it impossible to refrain from pointing out bad logic.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The sample size of Obama's days in office is so much shorter than Bush's two terms of office that you can't compare the data of each. If anything, the only relevant comparison would be between the number of days Bush went away or took off during his first 150 days or whatever it's been for Obama so far. I don't see the point of doing that analysis though, so if you want to check into it, go ahead. My only reason for engaging you thus far is because you asked what the basis for hypocrisy charge was and I responded, and then your response was based on a false comparison.
casualobserver
· 6 months ago
Ryan, you and the rest of our netroot visitors, should realize you strike as much trepidation as a three year old flailing at an adult's knees.
Go up one thread and read Stickings for your daily dose of Kos-ism.
kathykattenburg
· 6 months ago
Let me do a few back-of-the-envelope style calculations for you.
GS, you are awesome.
DemocratsAreFascists
· 6 months ago
"I can't believe this is controversial."
Which shows what arrogant, spoiled hypocrites you liberals are.
casualobserver
· 6 months ago
Back in February, Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana and made a speech, including this:
You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime. There’s got to be some accountability and some responsibility, and that’s something that I intend to impose as President of the United States.
Apparently, there is an exception for lesser distances.
Roger86
· 6 months ago
This site is an abomination. "Moderate" voice? It's basically an organ of the Democratic Party communications apparatus. Look at yourselves, people. You're a bunch of ideologically homogeneous apologists--not "centrists" or "independent" thinkers. The level of naivete on this site is frankly embarrassing.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
kathykattenburg doesn't make much sense, but at least she's angry.
So it's better for Obama to be a rank hypocrite than for Bush to take vacations without telling everybody else they shouldn't. Got it.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
Jim Treacher doesn't make much sense, but at least he knows the talking points.
Senseless angry hypocrisy indeed.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
Oh noes, I just got called out by the only person on the Internet with a worse name than mine.
Okay, George: Bush should've interspersed his many vacations with finger-wagging lectures on sacrifice and saving the environment and so forth. Better?
As for your "Oh noes, I just got called out by the only person on the Internet with a worse name than mine." comment, I'm guessing that's not anger, that's peevishness.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
"Obama doesn't lecture people, because those I don't like say he does." But that's not peevish!
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
"Obama doesn't lecture people, because those I don't like say he does." But that's not peevish!
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
Jim Treacher-
When you quote the statement, "Obama doesn't lecture people, because those I don't like say he does," who exactly are you quoting?
Because what I said was it's a right-wing talking point and then I showed some right-wingers using it.
Maybe you meant to quote yourself saying something like, It must be lecturing because people I like say it's lecturing.
(Did you see what I did, there?)
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
Presumably someone will.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
Unless their vision gets interestingly moderated.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
...okay.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
I thought perhaps I'd clicked the wrong button or something, but apparently the Moderate Voice is moderating my voice. Interesting.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
...um, yeah....
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
Well, it's tough to argue with logic like that. Well said.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
Jim Treacher's full comment was
...okay.
My reply:
...um, yeah....
I can only work with what you give me.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
And you're doing a terrific job.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
Shucks.
JimTreacher
· 6 months ago
Hey, you deserve it.
GeorgeSorwell
· 6 months ago
Well, Jim, one of us is a well-known internet humorist. And the other is me.
I'm sure you're doing your best, but unless you can actually come up with something worthwhile here, I'm done.
All Comments
Um, excuse me? A date night in the heart of one of the country's largest cities sends a message counter to the message that we must conserve gasoline or move to smaller cars? How?
It's true he's not taking public transportation, but that's for security reasons. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
The Obamas are city people by temperament, and I doubt they're trying to send a specific pro-city message, but to say they are setting a bad example by going out to dinner and the theater in a big city when the message is supposed to be reducing our reliance on fossil fuel and the car culture in general makes no sense at all.
Oh my sweet effin' god. What is the big deal? Barack Obama has done more in his first 100 days to help Americans struggling in this economy than George W. Bush or any other president for that matter has since FDR. So why would I, or anyone, begrudge him a date night with his wife in NYC? It's not taking anything away from me.
I would have been angered by this if Obama had done this trip at taxpayer expense, but he didn't. And Jim Treacher's excuse that Bush 43 "always worked" on his vacations is so much garbage. He said he worked, but even if he did, that means he had the right to charge me to go do half an hour of work at his ranch and hang out on the porch the rest of the time? Treacher's logic about Bush vacationing on the public dime being okay because he "didn't castigate the wealthy" is perverted. That's the whole point, that he "didn't castigate the wealthy." Everything he did was for the wealthy! Taking more vacations than any other president in modern history, at taxpayer expense, when most Americans are struggling to pay bills, is more heinous because he did everything he could to help the wealthy, not less.
I already know that Barack Obama is a very wealthy man -- as are most of our elected leaders in Washington. Taking his wife to the theater and dinner afterward in Washington, D.C. instead of New York City doesn't change that. And as far as I am concerned, he and Michelle can go to the theater, have dinner at swanky restaurants, etc., etc., all they want as long as I'm not paying for it and as long as he's doing his job for me and other Americans like me. And he is. He's not perfect, but he's a damn sight better than his predecessor.
If the relative number of days in office invalidates my comparison, why doesn't it also invalidate Jazz's comparison?
Honestly, everyone knows George Bush took a lot of vacations, right? But when Obama takes a weekend off, that is to say a Saturday and Sunday off like people normally do, suddenly a bunch of so-called conservatives freak out about it.
An abortion doctor was slaughtered in his church today. Obama cannot travel light. It is not fair to the brave women and men of the Secret Service. As president, the more he gets out, whether Broadway Plays or church or soccer games, the better. It does not make him a hypocrite to want to protect the planet and live as full a life as he can and allow the Secret Service to do their job.
I am a lifelong liberal and member of the Democratic party, and I regret that we live in a nation of murderers. But I do not begrudge any famous person the protection from the kind of lunatic haters we spawn. I want Dick Cheney protected, I want Rush Limbaugh protected, and I want Obama protected. I also want him and his family and all famous people and their families to live a full life.
I think the petty carping on Obama is what passes for thinking in too many conservative circls. Obviously, Daniel Larison of Eunomia and other true consrvative thinkers are not going to play pretend gotcha, but the rest of you are a very sad and hateful lot:
Obama puts mustard on his cheeseburger.
Obama went to a Broadway Play.
You are pathetic and I hope you get lots and lots of coverage because despite all the crazy people who shoot people in church, America is a great land and we are a great people. The more you show how petty you are in pretend gotcha's the more people think of Republicans as the political party not to support.
At all.
What makes this problematic is that it's just another example of the "do as I say not as I do" attitude of this administration, and it's starting to smack of elitism and classism to me.
"Petty" has lost its meaning, as Mr. Shaw amply demonstrates here.
What actual difference did this trip to NYC make? If Obama had stayed in Washington are you seriously arguing that things would be different?
I am disgusted with these kinds of complaints. It s good for a president to get out and see a Broadway Play. It is good for Broadway and NYC for a president to treat a night out in NYC as a special event.
I love Moderate Voice. Moderate Voice is the last place I would expect to see someone write something so foolish and so partisan.
I hope Mr. Shaw's essay here follows him as an example of the kind of thinker and writer he is. "Petty"? Yes, but worse than petty.
On the hypocrisy issue, I do think the Dems who criticized Bush own that. The GOP who now point out Obama's recreational outings are mainly pointing out the hypocrisy, not saying that this should be a big deal but just saying that there's a double standard since many of Obama's supporters didn't think that Bush should have had any downtime or enjoyment during his tenure. Now, if anyone is truly saying that Bush should have had all the vacation time he wanted but Obama should not get away from the job, those folks are hypocrites too- but my take on it is that people are calling out the hypocrisy just like Dems who criticize family values GOP politicians who get caught up in sex scandals (they don't necessarily mean that the sex scandal is a big deal, but they point out the hypocrisy involved when the GOP supporters ignore what they otherwise would criticize.)
Of course in both cases there's also a counterargument- Bush's "Annoy the terrorists, go shopping" advice was a bit silly but did have an underlying point that we shouldn't alter our lives out of fear. And similarly, there's a school of thought during a recession that people who can spend, should be encouraged to spend and consume. Obama seems to be sending mixed messages on that one (his Las Vegas dustup and attempt at reversal, for instance.)
From my comment to Michael this morning...
My wife and I both work in self-employed arenas, at least in part. We too have to set up "date night" and use that exact term for it. We sometimes take in a show, a movie or a play, and usually dinner as well. I think it's great. However, when we go out we take our own car, which we pay for. We pay for the gas, the insurance and everything else. Nobody shuts down several blocks of mid-town Manhattan so that we may pass by unmolested, safe and on schedule. We do not ask others to foot the bill for two plane loads of my assistants, co-workers and aides who need to follow my every step, not to mention a bunch of photogs and reporters.
1--I don't think taking a weekend trip is the moral equivalent of weeks and weeks (and weeks and weeks [and still more weeks]) of vacation. Let alone all those weeks and weeks of taxpayer-bill-footed assistant travel to another time zone.
2--If the Obamas went to the theater in Washington DC, traffic in Washington DC would have to be shut down the same as in Manhattan. Or the same as it would have to be shut down on whatever rural roads in Texas Mr Bush traveled (where it might possibly be more difficult for the locals to find an alternative route?).
This is Richard Cohen-esqe. I hope all these petty people and Mr Shaw himself get remembered for criticizing a president for going to see a Broadway Play.
And while the hypocrisy angle is a great Talking Point, President Bush took nearly 1,000 days at Camp David and Crawford. President Bush averaged 120 some days away from the White House a year and he started and waged an unnecessary war.
Mr. Shaw should have this essay mentioned at the top of his biography so people will know what kind of man he is. Maybe Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cohen can write a book together.
I don't think that this is comparable to Bush being away from the White House at either Camp David or at Crawford, both of which locations are working locations anyhow. Plus, Bush wasn't taking over the auto industry and handing it to the unions, while shafting other investors who hold stock in their retirement funds from GM or Chrysler (to the tune of 40% vs 10%); Bush wasn't opposed to drilling for oil in America--so his use of Presidential planes didn't rise to the hypocritical.
Don't tell me to drive a smart death car (and by the way, don't write me off as an SUV nut--I drive a pzev Accord) and then jet around on a Gulfstream
Bush's time at Crawford and Camp David was much more in the traditional mold of presidents like FDR who operated out of the Little White House in GA during much of his presidency. They were working vacations. He hosted heads of state at both locations.
You can certainly argue whether or not presidents should do that, but it's really something different that Obama is doing. I saw him quoted one time saying that he deliberately wanted to get out more and be more involved in the social scene (he was actually saying this in regard to boosting Washington DC as a desirable social scene, which wouldn't explain a trip to NYC though.) But he and others also make the argument that a president should be among the people more and not in a bubble. It remains to be seen how that will work out for him in terms of public opinion, I guess. It's a reasonable premise, but arguable as to how possible it is given the expense and the turmoil that it causes because of security needs.
I still don't see the basis for accusations of hypocrisy.
What I see is a double standard--One weekend for Obama is equal to all of Bush's vacation days.
By the way, the first story that came up when I Googled "Bush Crawford vacation" was this from CBS, tallying the number of days Bush spent on vacation at Camp David (487 days over 149 trips there) and Crawford (490 days over 77 trips).
Students of hypocracy might also be interested in the second link which is called "Crawford-Bound Bush Slams Congressional Vacation"
The main point you get is that Bush took a lot of vacation days, which I think everyone knows. Obama takes a weekend and it supposed to be the equivalent of all that?
I confess I don't know anything about the Obama's socializing inside DC, but I don't think that's very equal to loading up Air Force One and jetting off to Texas--or Manhattan.
It seems to me that when Obamas host parties at the White House, no assistants get flown around on the taxpayer's dime and no public traffic gets shut down, so I don't see that as the basis for complaint. (Just the opposite, shouldn't it be the basis for praise?) Also, I have to guess the Bushes hosted White House parties attended by celebs.
Let me do a few back-of-the-envelope style calculations for you.
George Bush was President for 8 years. A year has 365 days. So, George Bush was President for 8 x 365 = 2920 days.
According to the link I gave above, he took 487 vacation days in Camp David and 490 vacation days in Crawford.
That's 487 + 490 = 977 vacation days.
977 vacation days divided by 2920 equals 33% of his Presidency spent on vacation.
I'm sure he worked on some of those days. But I also remember him spending some vacation days in Kennbunkport, where his father owns some property. So maybe the actual number of vacation is higher?
977 / 2920 = 0.3345.
Obama has been President for about 140 days. He took yesterday and today off.
2 / 140 = 0.0142.
Rounding up--even though I was nice enough to round down for Mr Bush--that's 2%.
2% for Obama as opposed to 33% for Bush.
Now, I haven't been keeping track of Obama's vacation days. Maybe he took another week, which would bring him up to 9 days.
9 / 140 = 0.0642.
That would be up to 6% for Obama.
As I say, these are back of the envelope calculations. Someone might double check them and find them wrong, someone might prefer a completely different set of numbers.
In my first comment here, I said I couldn't believe this was controversial. And I still can't. And yet, here we are, nearly 20 comments later.
If somebody dislikes Obama, they'll be likely to see bad faith in his actions. They'll see this as being elite (even though owning a ranch in Texas might also be elite). They'll see this as adding to the deficit (even they didn't complain about Bush's many trips to Texas as adding to the deficit).
Sorry, CStanley, but this issue (is that what it is?) is a loser for you.
Keep banging away if you like, though.
I'm enjoying it.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The sample size of Obama's days in office is so much shorter than Bush's two terms of office that you can't compare the data of each. If anything, the only relevant comparison would be between the number of days Bush went away or took off during his first 150 days or whatever it's been for Obama so far. I don't see the point of doing that analysis though, so if you want to check into it, go ahead. My only reason for engaging you thus far is because you asked what the basis for hypocrisy charge was and I responded, and then your response was based on a false comparison.
Go up one thread and read Stickings for your daily dose of Kos-ism.
GS, you are awesome.
Which shows what arrogant, spoiled hypocrites you liberals are.
You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime. There’s got to be some accountability and some responsibility, and that’s something that I intend to impose as President of the United States.
Apparently, there is an exception for lesser distances.
So it's better for Obama to be a rank hypocrite than for Bush to take vacations without telling everybody else they shouldn't. Got it.
Senseless angry hypocrisy indeed.
Okay, George: Bush should've interspersed his many vacations with finger-wagging lectures on sacrifice and saving the environment and so forth. Better?
In fact, President Bush did part of a State of the union address to speechify about Americans' addiction to foreign oil. Not that he did anything to slow it down, which maybe makes him a hypocrite about burning up some oil on all those vacations.
Also, Obama being a lecturer is one of the popular right-wing talking points, isn't it?
Michelle Malkin.
Ann Althouse. (The Instapundit liked that one.)
The Free Republic.
The Corner, at The National Review. (And another.)
Nicolle Wallace at The Daily Beast.
As for your "Oh noes, I just got called out by the only person on the Internet with a worse name than mine." comment, I'm guessing that's not anger, that's peevishness.
When you quote the statement, "Obama doesn't lecture people, because those I don't like say he does," who exactly are you quoting?
Because what I said was it's a right-wing talking point and then I showed some right-wingers using it.
Maybe you meant to quote yourself saying something like, It must be lecturing because people I like say it's lecturing.
(Did you see what I did, there?)
My reply:
I can only work with what you give me.
I'm sure you're doing your best, but unless you can actually come up with something worthwhile here, I'm done.
Have a nice day.