Administration Says Bush Hasn't Taken Five-Week Vacation

Perhaps reacting to widespread criticism of President Bush's lengthy stay this August in Crawford, Texas, the Bush Administration is now trying to suggest the president hasn't been on vacation after all.

As reported in an Aug. 24 story in San Bernardino Sun, administration spokesman David Almacy said the reason that Bush is in Crawford, Texas, is due to a previously unreported renovation of the West Wing of the White House.

"He's operating on a full schedule; he's just doing it from the ranch instead of from the White House," Almacy said. "The only week he had officially off was this last week."

Does that mean that Bush hasn't broken former President Reagan's record for most vacation days?

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 1 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 9:28 am

    Why do you care about this? More to the point, why should WE care? Except to marvel at your relentless Bush-hating, of course.

    The fact that his 'vacations' are almost always working vacations is abundantly clear to anyone who watches the news. While he's been in Crawford he's gone out to at least two fundraisers and two major non-fundraising speeches that I'm aware of, not to mention issuing press statements and meeting with his staff every day.

    This is the 21st century. There's nothing he can do in the White House that he can't do in Crawford.

    Maybe it's time to get a clue and stop trying to manufacture controversy.

    Dave

  • 2 - Rich

    Aug 26, 2005 at 10:59 am

    As long as they have a fax machine at Crawford the president can do his work.

    After all, vacation time is "hard work"

  • 3 - David R. Mark

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:19 am

    The point is that this Bush spokesman was trying to spin the length of the vacation by suggesting it wasn't a vacation at all.

    The fact that this spin comes after widespread -- left, right and otherwise -- criticism of the president taking five weeks off is just a coincidence, I suppose.

  • 4 - Silas Kain

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:24 am

    Does it really matter if he is in Crawford or Washington? He has teleconferencing, fax machines and an entire National Defense at his disposal wherever on the planet he may be. Now, isn't that a comforting thought?

  • 5 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:28 am

    Of course it doesn't matter, Silas. In fact, I admire the fact that Bush is sensible enough to make use of modern technology to be mobile and adaptable.

    It only matters to David Mark because it's something he can spin into an attack on Bush, however unmerited.

    Dave

  • 6 - David R. Mark

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:31 am

    Dave, that's bull and you know it.

    If you are too simple to read what I write, too bad for you.

    The point is that all along this was called a vacation -- even by the president. It wasn't being disputed as a vacation. People from all over the political spectrum, however, criticized the LENGTH of the vacation (as I posted earlier). I pointed out that Bush, with 3.5 years remaining in his presidency, was about to set the record for most vacation days.

    Now, a spokesman suggests Bush isn't on vacation -- he's in Crawford because of work done at the White House?

    Don't you recognize spin when you see it?

  • 7 - Nancy

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:33 am

    Aside from the fact that the weather is as miserable or more so in Crawford than it is in DC, from his point of view it would be preferable to be in TX if only because he has so much more turf to move around on; the WH is elegant, but it's no place to live, anymore, being a museum more than anything else. Actually, if you're rich enough to be President, it would probably be a better idea to have the WH be whereever you lived, from now on. Lord knows the communications wouldn't be a problem, nor would setting up adjacent field offices for immediate staff & personnel; they do it all the time.

  • 8 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:40 am

    David, this is so trivial, why are you wasting time on it. Don't you have bigger disinformation to manufacture?

    Who cares what they call his 5 weeks in Crawford? He's getting work done, he's also got some time to himself. Describing it as a vacation is accurate, saying that it's not really a vacation is also accurate - who the HELL cares except someone who is pathologically grasping at any straw to try to paint the administration as liars?

    Dave

  • 9 - Silas Kain

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:41 am

    The problem is the media and spin meisters. On one side, it's a vacation, on another it's work. The way I see it the President is the President 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Unless he is under sedation he is the Executive. I may not agree with a lot of what he has done lately but I do believe that any President should not be remanded to the confines of the White House. I can remember when Ronald Reagan (God rest his soul) would go out to the Western White House and chop wood, ride the horses or repair a fence. That's what he did to regenerate himself and people laughed or complained about his vacations. There has not been an occupant in the White House in the 20th Century who revered the Presidency more than Ronald Reagan.

  • 10 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:49 am

    david mark fails, again, to cite the obvious. He doesn't mention that Bill Clinton used to fly around the world and gladhand and dine with foreign leaders ON THE TAXPAYER'S DIME in what amounted to vacation time. Queen Hillary did exactly the same thing.
    But no, the Bush attack dogs NEVER recall the habits of their precious Clintons. The Bushes will never be accused to stealing from Air Force One or the White House, will they? Of course not, the aren't trailer trash.

    The Clintons were the biggest schnurers in history. I dare anyone to dispute that.

  • 11 - David R. Mark

    Aug 26, 2005 at 11:50 am

    Certainly, there would be no way Bush could do work at the White House while renovations were under way, right?

    The point is that the administration likes to spin things. That spin should be pointed out.

    If you choose to believe the spin, Dave, that's your business.

  • 12 - Rich

    Aug 26, 2005 at 12:25 pm

    Thanks David Mark,

    Dave Navelle excerpt "...Reelentless-Bush hating..."

    I found no such indication of any Bush hating in your article.

    Bush works out 6 days a week: Workouts include bicycling (15-20 miles, 15-18mph), treadmill (low impact "hill-work"), elliptical trainer, free weight resistance training, and stretching.

    I believe it takes approximatly 2 hours of exercising each day.

    As long as Bush has a modernized headset phone while runing and exercising he also help lead the free world.




  • 13 - OneMonkey'sUncle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    As long as Bush has a modernized headset phone while runing and exercising he also help lead the free world.

    I'm just waiting for that "lead" part to kick in... He's done everything else to the "free world," he might as well try leading it for once. Anyway, it's a moot point because that's not a phone cord at all, it's a line to his iPod with the Collected Works of Tuck and Patti on it.

  • 14 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 3:23 pm

    >>Certainly, there would be no way Bush could do work at the White House while renovations were under way, right? <<

    I guess it would depend on the extent and nature of the renovations.

    >>The point is that the administration likes to spin things. That spin should be pointed out. <<

    Everyone likes to spin things - you're particularly active in that area.

    >>If you choose to believe the spin, Dave, that's your business.<<

    Spin is not an altering of facts and it's not lying. It's presentation of facts in a way that suits your purposes. In a case like this where it's so incredibly trivial I see no reason not to believe them, or to really care what their reasons for him being one place or another are, because it doesn't matter.

    What troubles me is why you think that the issue of how they explain where the president happens to be at a given time is of such great importance.

    Dave

  • 15 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 26, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    David Mark: The only thing spinning is your pointed little head from your latest fishing expedition.

    Why don't you try to count the amount of times Bush uses the toilet everyday and try to nail him on his lack of water conservation awareness and write another Really Important piece on that?

  • 16 - Shark

    Aug 26, 2005 at 5:00 pm

    "Mark the Sane and Sensible" -- my, what a sense of irony you had when you chose your screen name!

    I've seen your name around here, (you've held the indoor record for "comments" for a few days in a row) -- but this is the first I've read of you.

    ugh.

    ~So many dicks, so little time.

    Anyway, welcome to My List.

    Yer Future Daddy,
    Shark

  • 17 - Shark

    Aug 26, 2005 at 5:03 pm

    [Dave sighs, wipes his brow, and prays to gawd that I 'neglect' him due to my latest oath to carrying out guerrilla pataphysical justice]

  • 18 - Silas Kain

    Aug 26, 2005 at 5:23 pm

    ~So many dicks, so little time.

    Or such a little dick, so too much time.

  • 19 - DrPat

    Aug 26, 2005 at 5:30 pm

    Reminds me of a comic's line about his poverty-stricken childhood:

    I had no toys, growing up. If I hadn't been a boy, I wouldn't have had anything to play with...

  • 20 - Silas Kain

    Aug 26, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    So, DrPat, are we saying that for some men this blog has become a substitute for masturbation? There's something profoundly Freudian in this concept.

  • 21 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 6:45 pm

    I think that with a tiny little dick it takes more time, rather than less.

    Dave

  • 22 - WTF

    Aug 26, 2005 at 7:08 pm

    Had a couple of friends in and around past presidents (press corp, white house cadre etc...)

    Presidents don't take vacations, they go to alternate work sites, or telecommute.

    Get real.

  • 23 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 26, 2005 at 7:11 pm

    Exactly, WTF. That's why they age so fast on the job. I remember meeting Nixon in '73, and he looked like an absolute wreck, literally eaten up from the inside by the pressures of the job - of course for him the pressures were even higher than for others.

    Dave

  • 24 - Rich

    Aug 26, 2005 at 7:15 pm

    David Mark,

    I'm trying to take the focus off your points with my additional facts (posted above comment 12).

    I'm pissed that the righties aren't pissed at me:(

    Oh yea I got the info. off a self described conservative Freerepublic web site.

  • 25 - David R. Mark

    Aug 26, 2005 at 10:05 pm

    To Mark the sane -- Clinton didn't break the record for most vacation days, Bush did.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Dec 02, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for November

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs