Americans work harder than Europeans -- often two or three jobs -- and even the well paid don't get much vacation. Most of us don't have vacation houses, either. But we aren't Republican Presidents. Ronald Reagan was one of the most famous vacationing presidents, spending a whopping 335 days of his presidency at his ranch in Santa Barbara. That's almost a full year of eight not out of the White House.
Compared to George W. Bush, though, Ronald Reagan was a workaholic. Bush just made his 70th visit to his ranch at Crawford, Texas, and has racked up 452 days. That's than 25% more than Reagan. This is someone who takes time off mid day to exercise, then hits the sack at 9 pm, come what may.
This is a healthy way to live. Less stress. Too bad he doesn't want the rest of us to live the same kind of healthy life. Layabout bastard. At our expense.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Shit Revere, with as much as you like to bash on Bush I would have thought you would want him outta town as much as possible. For that matter I would rather have Congress meeting in limited sessions thus limiting their ability to continously pound away at us. They had crops to pull in, people to meet with. Limited government.
Now the bastards are always around, feel that they should be doing something and then they come up with regulations, laws and crap that screws with us. After WWII the number of rules and regulations exploded by I read 1500 percent til now on a per year session.
Yeah, the President outta town and he can take Congress with him... Maybe bass fishing?
But thats just me.
Now the bastards are always around, feel that they should be doing something and then they come up with regulations, laws and crap that screws with us. After WWII the number of rules and regulations exploded by I read 1500 percent til now on a per year session.
Nice statistic, but does it really mean all those regulations, laws and crap are screwing us? Or are they just screwing you personally? Without additional information about what those pesky regulations, laws and crap do, it's hard to tell.
I don't mind being a bastard, I do object to being compared to your asshole of a president. His parents were married and he invaded Iraq. Find you own epithet you bas...oh.
Let's address the real issue-his complete disregard for working hard to serve us. It must be good to be king.
I'd be thrilled about all the time he spends away from the office except for his rampant cronyism. The yahoos he leaves in charge frequently aren't any smarter than GWB. And the guy that is smarter, the VP, really doesn't have my or, most of the nations best interests in mind. We are damned whether he is in the office or not. A more correct epithet might be lazy jackass.
To play devil's advocate (and that phrase has rarely seemed more appropriate), how much of this time off is really a working vacation? Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that the presidency requires continual attention no matter where the office holder is.
On the other hand, it doesn't really fit with (what Republicans claim to be) their work ethic, but since when has the GOP ever feared double standards?
I'm really disappointed. You have an amazing opportunity on this forum, and in this nation of free expression, to be non-partisan, to refrain from name-calling, and to use basic common sense to assess this issue. No American president, ever, has been truly "on vacation" while his nameplate has been on the door, regardless of where his body has been. (OK, I'll get really specific and ugly in my example: Clinton was in the Oval office when he chose to take advantage of the "hero-worship" of interns. He certainly wasn't working, even though his body was exactly in the Oval Office where the President's body belonged. I wish he'd instead been on vacation)
There are posts written here that are simply so epithet-filled that I won't read them, simply due to the poster's lack of creativity and respect for the readers. Revere, please don't lower yourself to that level. Please come back from the Dark Side. AnnieRN, a staunch Independent
Sorry Reveres,
I am going to go off subject now. I am speaking as an outsider Australian.
I have been struck by the wistful thought of the presidency that might have been.
Imagine if you will, Al Gore as President and John Kerry as Vice President. Wow! I believe the world would have changed for the better.
Instead, America is slowly going down the toilet. We now have a world recession on our door step. I fear that America will not rise, this time, from the ashes. Instead there will be a competition between China and Russia for the crown of most powerful.
We (the rest of the world) will now have to watch a nauseating competition for a mediocre president. All three contenders are not up to the task in my opinion. Obama is unseasoned. Clinton has a dynasty and some unsavoury issues (hidden), and McCain is another word for neo-conservative puppet.
I fear that America is going down the wrong road. The world cannot afford to lose it's power base. What the hell are you doing????????????
AnnieRN your are 100% correct. The revere that posted this and the commenters who agree are simply total assholes, and yes I will resort to name-calling when supposedly educated people write such stupid, silly drivel. The office of the President is where ever the president happens to be. The President is on duty 7/24/365 (366 this year). Either the revere who wrote this has absolutely no clue about the Presidency or just needed to get some hits for the blog or has missed me terribly. I suspect all three.
Victoria - McCain a puppet for the neo-conservatives? Where the hell did you come up with that? If this is a sample of Aussie knowledge of American politics, well just let me make something perfectly clear, one of the best things about being American is that we aren't Australian.
To AnnieRN and pauls lane, you both seem to be saying nothing more than "the President is wherever the President happens to be". As I'm an outsider can you please tell me exactly what he's doing when he goes to his holiday home that would count as working "7/24/365"? Or when he goes to bed at 9pm and doesn't go back to the office till whenever his morning prayer sessions are done with? SUre seems to me like a lot od downtime and it would, along with countless other things, help explain his miserable record as President.
Annie: Your comment was a serious one and it deserves a serious response (unlike pauls lane whose lack of civility has become tiresome).
You make several points which I would like to address briefly. One concerns my "opportunity" to be non-partisan. I am not taking that opportunity for a simple reason. I am partisan, not in the usual Republican-Democrat sense, but in the larger political sense. I have been engaged in political action for almost 50 years. I am not a loyal Democrat by any means and thought Clinton was a lousy President, not because he had sex with an intern (I could care less) but because I didn't care for his political positions which were mostly right of center. He had the good fortune to be at the right spot in the business cycle and he did some things that weren't so bad but mostly I disagreed with him and was publicly quite critical. I also despised LBJ, although on some issues he was extremely good (e.g., civil rights) but not on the issue that mattered to me, Vietnam (and civil liberties). Similarly Nixon was pretty good on some issues (not at all bad on the environment, but was an evil, nasty SOB). Carter was not very good either, although he is a pretty good ex-Prez. Reagan took a wrecking ball to some very important governmental structures (worker safety and environmental protection) which did lasting damage. So I am not a partisan in the sense you seemed to think.
Despite my unhappiness with a lot of these guys, I am not of the opinion they are all equally bad. Some are better (or worse, if you prefer) than others. In my lifetime as a voter (which goes back to JFK), however, there is no President anywhere near as bad as the current incumbent. Others may have been worse in some respects (Woodrow Wilson is one of my least favorite, Lincoln probably my favorite, so again it isn't a Dem Republican thing), but the government is so powerful now that when you get a jerk like this one driving the bus it can do so much more damage to the country and the world there is just no comparison. I think it is obvious I am also a staunch Independent, too. That doesn't mean I have to be nice about GWB. That is beyond both my abilities, inclinations and principles.
So that's a comment on the "partisan" issue. This is a blog (informal and personal), we do it 7 days a week (now for over 3 years) and we get no recognition or meaningful compensation from it so we feel free to express ourselves as we see fit. It's a small element of gratification and there are plenty here who appreciate someone saying what they are thinking. We think George Bush is vile, dangerous and has little interest in his job, which is why he lets others influence him and do the dirty work. He is a lazy bastard living the life of power at our and the world's expense. You may disagree but that's our opinion and we have no reason not to say it. We often use language a lot stronger than "bastard" and think that is pretty mild. We don't censor around here and put up with jerks like pauls lane on general principles, although he abuses it with such regularity we might reconsider. He is singularly unconstructive and rude. When I say singularly I pretty much mean it. You can see in the comments that lots of regular readers disagree with us but they don't act like typical trolls.
As to whether any American President is ever on vacation, of course they are. Some of them hardly worked at all. Mrs. R. thinks I am a workaholic because I am always "working", even on "vacation", blogging, reading science, emailing students, etc. But I am still on vacation and I know the difference. And it is a big difference. When I am away from the office and the zillion things that make it impossible for me to get sustained work done because of constant distractions from students, classes, colleagues, committee meetings, I know the difference. I have too little opportunity to get away but when I do it makes a huge difference, even if I am still "connected" 24/7. And GWB is away a record amount and doesn't work that hard when he is around, either. Your Clinton counterexample is kind of silly. He isn't "working" when he is eating or brushing his teeth either. But he didn't slip out of town for his trysts. He did it at work. He was still a lousy President IMO, but not because he was lazy or had sex in the Oval Office. He worked hard, just at the wrong things.
As to posts that are epithet filled, I rather doubt you can find many. Some have one or two epithets in them. As you note, you are free to not read them, just as I usually don't read pauls lane's junk. When he starts to interfere with other people by distorting or running threads off the rails I may do something about it but otherwise he is just a tiresome crank. They are common on the internet.
This is a long answer but you took the time to be serious so I took the time to answer. I don't expect you are satisfied with it but I thought you deserved to hear my response.
Taking an inordinate amount of time whacking shrubs in Texas is in my estimation the least of his crimes. But that is the argument posed and should be the argument rebutted. Actually, no one has countered the statement. I see do see several fallacious arguments, however.
The appeal to authority, stop the question even being asked.
The ad hominem argument, attacking the poster rather than addressing the question.
The appeal to authority, do not insult a sitting president. Unfortunately too often this argument is only used when the person asking for the respect only does so when it is his or her choice sitting in the Oval office.
Red herring arguments. Lets change the subject because we can't really disprove the assertion.
The bottom line is there is no valid reason why a sitting President spending so much time on vacation is defensible. If the president of your business was taking a similar amount of time off, while the business was falling into severe financial difficulties and, was being attacked by another business, would you be so quick to defend the presidents behaviour? We have over 200 years of history of verbally attacking a sitting President. Why we should suddenly show respect is preposterous. All the opposing arguments are weak.
revere - 50 years of 'political action' has taught you nothing. A tiresome crank? A jerk? Coming from you that is a compliment. Thank you. I read most of the posts on this blog, and have actually learned some things. I do not comment on any of your 'pure' science articles. I only comment on your political articles or when you let your politics blind you to your science, which appears to happen all to frequently. You have no idea how hard GWB works either at the WH or in Texas. In fact, if GWB was the type of President you wished him to be, you would be defending all of his 'vacations'. The work, responsibility, and duties of the President followed FDR to White Plains, followed Ike to Camp David, followed Kennedy to Hyannis Port, followed LBJ to Texas, followed Nixon to California, followed Carter to Ga.,and follows GWB to Texas.
Then you have the audacity to compare your work, your responsibilities with that of the President? What a freakin' sad joke you are revere.
Paul A - no. I said the office of the president is where the president happens to be. Read the above. And it isn't his holiday home. It is his home. The WH by the way belongs to the American people. And I think he's done a pretty good job myself. All except for immigration and no child left behind, he's done a good job.
Shannon - the point being your idea of a vacation is meaningless. Get it through your head the President is the President whether he is in the WH, in Texas, in the air, whacking weeds on his ranch, wherever. You can argue against the policies of the President all you want, I might disagree with you, and I probably do disagree with you, but to argue that the President, ANY PRESIDENT takes too much vacaction time is silly. The work, duties, responsibilities all follow. Got it? I can't say it any clearer Shannon.
And revere deserves to be smacked around for this post because of the subject matter and the tone of the article. Revere can call me tiresome, jerk, crank, and troll all he wants but in truth his post showed much more of these charactertics then any of my responses.
pauls: You don't read very carefully. I wasn't comparing my work to his (although what i do does more good and less harm than what he does). You (characteristically) confuse power with worth. He has a lot of power. But most working people, especially the ones he cares nothing for that work two or three jobs just to barely feed their families, work much harder than he does. Much harder. They don't go to bed at 9 pm and take a couple hours out to exercise and spend a year and half out of 7 at their ranches "clearing brush." There's plenty written on his lifestyle. It's not a secret. The other Presidents you name really did work hard as did his daddy (for whom I have little respect as a president but at least he worked at it). I have no idea what you do, so maybe you work hard too. Maybe not. I know you don't mind criticizing others. For example, you sure don't ever seem to have written a peer reviewed article or done any peer review yourself, although you felt free to shoot off your mouth about it (your earlier comment that scientific peer review is mental masturbation). I doubt you even know how peer review is done.
He's done a real good job in Iraq. Real good. Real, real good. Thanks. But he can always use help. If you are under 42 you can support him by enlisting. Then you'll be gainfully employed. Or are you, like him and other chickenhawks, just eager to have others fight for you?
Hey Pauls Lane - POYHA - in a polite way.
So sorry should read
Hey Pauls Lane - POYAH - in a polite way.
Means the same thing though.
Pauls, your argument is absurd. Your tone abusive and threatening. An assertion that the President is President whether he is whacking brush is an argument of 'spurious authority'. Just because he is still President does not intimate he is working, earning the pay or, respect the office demands. Somehow, I find the clearing of weeds to be of equal value of dealing with an economy in a nose dive, gas predicted to rise to $4.00 a gal. by summer, rising tension in parts of Africa, the Middle East and South America as ludicrous. He isn't running the country someone else is. And I find those people to be incompetent, and/or more interested in big business rather than addressing the real problems this country is facing. The nation is going to hell in a hand-basket and the man steering is picking daisies.
revere I'm probably your age or perhaps a bit younger, I'm in my mid 50s. I spent 30 years of my life working for the government. I'm retired now. I raise horses with my wife on my 'ranch'. I whack weeds too. You know what I am doing when I am whacking weeds? I'm thinking I should buy a goat or two. Some of my government jobs meant I was on call 24/7/365. Even when I was on 'vacation' I had to be available for at least phone calls. I had to make work decisions when I was on vacation. Some jobs are like that. Oh well. What are you going to do, quit?
As for peer review, my comment was based on global warming. I saw a headline on this very blog, about how the scientific concenus about global warming may be disintegrating. Wasn't that your and some of your reader arguments regarding global warming, that how could someone argue with the scientific concenus and everything being peer reviewed? I may be right about peer review, huh?
You were comparing how its like on your vacations with your work, yet the president doesn't seem to get the same consideration when he is on 'vacation', you know meeting with aides, formulating policies, working the phones to get the votes needed to pass laws that unsurprisingly you don't agree with. And save me the tear jerking stories revere, about folks working two or three jobs barely feeding their families. Been there done that during the Carter administration.
revere: you know that this type of thing is going to happen on blogs, come on now. I personally don't want your blood pressure boiling over. You and I have disagreed, that's what people do when frustration with the world at large becomes the dominate theme.
You get plenty of recognition here revere. You are valued by more people than you'll probably ever realize. The compensation part I can't help you with.
Yes, the government is so powerful now that it's driving those who see it nearly insane. Perhaps it's this and the fact that the mass majority of Americans are really blind to it OR just so darn self-absorbed that they'll not do anything until it's really over the top.
pauls lane: Got "hay burner's" aye? Beautiful creatures they are.
Understand where you're coming from too. Just state your point and end the name calling.
Please come back from the Dark Side. AnnieRN, a staunch Independent
Good reminder, AnnieRN. Revere did mention that he will reciprocate someday, I think that the time is near. Cross the finger:-)
To augment your staunch independent, poised scientist with religious coherence:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/r…
Shannon, please, perhaps abusive but not threatening.
Lea when the orignal article contains 'name calling' the author, whether he likes it or not, opens himself up to the same.
Victoria - I don't know what poyah means. But as long as it was polite....
I am sure that you have the utmost integrity and subtracted all of the days that Bush was conducting business at the Ranch from your vacation day totals. I recall a large number of times that Bush hosted foreign dignitaries at his ranch. By hosting them at his ranch do you consider it a vacation for Bush? What if he had hosted the dignitaries at Camp David? Would it still have been a vacation day for Bush?
Lea: You are right, of course. I herniated a disk at L4/L5 and my tolerance level isn't what it usually is. You and I (and Randy and Victoria and . . . ) have disagreed often and we all can be sharp with each other but it is always within bounds and I normally don't mind. Argument is fine. I encourage it. Some things I don't like, though, and nastiness and meaness are on that list.
Pauls Lane,
POYAH can mean anything you want it to mean.
People On Yachts Are Hateful.
Pink Ox Yodel Around Harbour.
Pigs Oil Yaks At Hanover.
Pies On YoYos Assist Hogs.
Pig Oink Yoho Art Hags.
Poking Olly Yells At Harrold.
Or
The O stands for OFF!
You work it out darling!
You are lucky I did not say POYAW.
Of course, said ever so politely.
Pauls,
It is possible you meant verbally smacked in the following statement.
[snip]
And revere deserves to be smacked around for this post because of the subject matter and the tone of the article
[snip]
But given the tone of the rest of your posts here perhaps not.
I don't know you very well. I can only make assumptions on posts over the last couple of weeks. I have come possibly to the misguided assumption you are a very angry man. I believe almost everything I have read from you is abusive.
You know, it occurs to me you would win more friends and a lot more arguments if you were at least a little less antagonistic. A good thesaurus along with some deep breathing would be a good investment.
Revere, thank you for your very thoughtful answer. I appreciate now that your first post was written angrily, but not flippantly.
I look at the presidency the same way that I look at my job. I'm a nurse, but unable to work "outside" because we have so many handicapped kids. (Some home-made, some adopted.) There is no such thing as "routine" in our family, and one or another behavior of the kids needs attention--now. All the time. If we go to the grocery store, I have to be hyper-vigilant. if we go "on vacation", we have to be hypervigilant. After we put the kids to bed, we have to be hyper-vigilant; I'm always the last one to go to sleep at night, because of safety issues. We have to constantly make decisions that, in our opinion, are the best for the family. Usually, we're right, sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes, what we know to be right--holding the hand of a psychotic 13-year-old simply to cross a parking lot safely--appears wrong to others. I think the presidency is a lot like that--no evenings or weekends off, even if the President is at his "vacation" spot.
Anyway, thanks for your feedback. BTW, Lincoln was one of the most amazing people ever, in his era or any other. I was one of those geeky kids who memorized the Gettysburg Address in fifth grade, and I'm actually considering some of his other speeches. My kids are even getting to the point where their eyes roll a bit when I bring out yet another picture of Honest Abe. I'd love to sit down with you and your wife for coffee someday. Thanks for this arena. AnnieRN.
Victoria - got it! Thanks for the clue. A pity you don't know what you are talking about though when it comes to American politics. Your heartfelt wishful thinking of a Gore/Kerry presidency made me gag though, sorry. Happily you can't vote in US elections.
Shannon - I did indeed mean verbally smacked. I am not an angry man. I have a wicked sense of humor, am very easy to get along with, usually. I do get angry when I read some of revere's posts. Perhaps I shouldn't read them, but I think revere deserves to hear the other side from time to time. Keeps him on his toes, (revere I am truly sorry about your disk problems - I might abuse you verbally for your views on things but I wish no physical injury or pain to anyone).
For my part I find some of revere's posts abusive - 'layabout bastard' being just the latest example (or lazy jackass as one of his commenters opined). I am not interested in winning friends nor am I interested in winning arguments here. Being heard is enough. I think its important that you, revere, and others know and understand that there are others who totally disagree with your views and opinions - even silly ones about the president and 'vacations'.
Pauls,
Glad to hear no physical harm was meant. The trouble with being a newbie somewhere is not knowing the personalities of other posters. And the lazy jackass comment was mine. Neither will I apologize for it nor, will I take it back. I read today he was unaware of the projected $4.00 a gallon gas until asked recently in a press conference. To say he is out of touch with the common man is equivalent to saying the ocean is wet.
pauls lane
Talk to the hand AH.
"I am not interested in winning friends nor am I interested in winning arguments here. Being heard is enough."
--------------------------------------------------
Pauls: After so many posts directed for you, I better quote a piece of poetry composed by Wislawa Szymborska ( A Nobel laureate 1996, a Polish now aged 86.), Tilte: An Unexpected Meeting:
----
"We treat each other with exceeding courtesy;
we say it's great to see you after these years.
Our tigers drink milk.
Our hawks tread the ground.
Our sharks have all drowned.
Our wolves yawn beyond the open cage.
Our snakes have shed their lightning,
our apes their fights of fancy,
our peacocks have renounced their plumes.
The bats flew out of our hair long ago.
We fall silent in mid-sentence,
all smiles, past help.
Our humans
don't know how to talk to one another."
Quoted by paiwan, same age of you, a big old boy. Remember to bring your XO, Revere is a big senior boy, 10 years senior to us means more fragile and wiser. :-)
Shannon - GWB might have lied - the bastard - about not knowing the future.
Victoria - I'm the AH but you are the one that accused McCain of being a tool for the neo-conservatives? You wrote about the US not being able to rise, this time, from the ashes. When did the US ever rise from the ashes? Oh never. I had no idea the US was knee deep in ashes now. What ashes are you talking about? The US is going down the toilet, and apparently taking the wrong road to get there, thanks for the insight. Also, Gore's VP candidate was Joe Lieberman in 2000, not Kerry. Granted Al and Joe might have parted company in 2004 because after 9/11 I don't see Al, girly-man, that he is, wanting to really do anything other then lob a few missles into Afghanistan, like his Prez, Clinton, did. Joe on the other hand probably would have wanted to do what Bush did which may have led to his being dropped from the ticket in 2004. Gore and Kerry, girly-man and he who has no idea what he voted for or against or when. You do have a point about this presidential election coming up. The three contenders are somewhat less than spectacular; however, it is uniquely American and for that reason I am somewhat proud because in the US we really don't get the best qualified people to run for the top office. We get 2nd tier folks, the politically wounded, the politically unseasoned, the somewhat politically naive, and the never ending thirst for power folks like the Clintons. But you know what? We keep on truckin', don't we? Oh yeah, good luck to both China and Russia when they duke it out for Most Powerful Country on Earth crown. I can see them both just a struttin' down the cat walk to the tune of 'I'm too sexy for the world, too sexy for the world'.