Ya know?

I'm generally inclined to cut some slack for the various presidents for things like this, since all of the support / protection / etc., is an unavoidable part of the whole package.

But, for this one, when is he *not* on vacation (of some sort)?

Even when he's 'on duty', it seems like he really isn't there (can't remember who said it, but Obama has managed to figure out a way for the president to vote 'present').

I suspect that a can of tuna would be more involved in our government than our current resident of 1600 pennsylvania avenue.

Glad to see people bitching this up.

Dubya was no better: He started two wars and spent much of the year on his Texas "ranch". The thing is, even in the harshest winter, the White House has got to be pretty comfortable. You'd think these guys would stay there just for the political points... Just to be able to pretend they were holding down the fort while Congress was out gallivantin'.

At least Bush used his own ranch for his getaways, and didn't globe-trot to high end resorts. Reagan used his Western Whitehouse ranch the same way.

The Obamas seem determined to use as much taxpayer money as possible.

Him and Her flights to every location? Absurd.

He's from Chicagoland! So many local politicians of Chicagoland are in jail, it's a running joke. Your money is their money. There's a reason why Cook county, Illinois is called Crook county. W made Texas into one of the most polluted states. Daley made Chicago politics into what it is. Obama embraced it.

It is outrageous and insensitive to the American public, especially that Michelle again cannot wait for her husband and gloms a few hundred grand off the public teet. It stinks of royal privilege.

The original link seems to be down, but here is another one talking about the costs: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/with-more-vacation-days-and-separate-travel-price-of-obama%E2%80%99s-annual-hawaiian-holiday-rises/123

I never understood the outrage over Bush's vacations. (Well, actually I did: the White House Press Corps understandably hated traveling to Crawford and reported thusly.) In this day and age, do we really think the president actually needs to be in D.C. to get work done? If there is a direct legislative crisis or something, yes, but otherwise?

He cost us what, a trillion a year while he's working? These vacations are cheap at twice the price.

Vacation long and often Mr President. Stay gone.

Dubya was no better: He started two wars and spent much of the year on his Texas "ranch".

Not sure why you threw in the non sequitur about "starting two wars" (btw, Bush started the war in Afghanistan? Really?)

Regardless - there's a huge difference between taking some R&R at his privately-owned home and flying off to a resort in Hawaii, especially during a worldwide recession while consistently nagging everyone else to share the sacrifice.

Have the Obamas even visited their Chicago house since they've been in the White House?

'cause both Bushes and Reagan made trips to their own houses (for Bush I only a vacation house, but his).

The Clintons didn't have their own house until Hillary needed one in order to be a New York "resident."

Since Carter's place was a revenue-earning farm, he placed it in a blind trust when he was elected and did not visit it during his presidency.

We should probably distinguish between R&R at your own residence and a vacation which involves renting a place for the First Family as well as for the retinue.

What's bad about this, is the same thing that is often the problem with Mr. Tin-Ear. The optics are bad. And he should KNOW that

Nobody begrudges him going home for Christmas... to Chicago. It isn't imagined as a luxury resort destination, the way Hawaii is.

When you compound all of this with all the other trips he and his wife have taken separately and together... Boya is out of touch, and so is his wife. WTF! with her taking separate trips? No matter how she imagines herself, she is JUST his wife. We didn't vote for her and she is incidental to the Prez, she shouldn't be able to run up exorbitant bills, just 'cuz she doesn't wish to wait and travel with him.

It all looks really bad, but they probably feel 'entitled' to it all.

Belt tightening is for little people.

It's hard work destroying a country.

The biggest problem I have with the exorbitant vacations is:
When was the last time anyone of you went on a luxury vacation?
I'm going to Texas in January to visit my grandmother so she can see my son. It will be the first time I've gone on vacation in 4 years, and it's not going to be luxury, what with staying with my grandmother, rather than a $250 per night hotel.

I also agree with other comments, there is a big difference between going home for Christmas, and going on vacation.

@Jazzhands - What's this "luxury vacation" of which you speak? Right now (and for the last few years and the foreseeable future) "vacation" means taking the Chinatown bus down to Virginia from NYC for the weekend to visit my family. I don't envision my children ever being able to leave the continental U.S. on my dime.

"W made Texas into one of the most polluted states."

False.

Texas led the nation in the reduction of toxic releases, dropping them by 43 million pounds during his tenure as Governor and dropping Texas from 1st to 5th. It's in the EPA's 1998 Toxic Release Inventory report, published in May 2000.

Now you may advance to a new position, that of "Oh, well, he really didn't have anything to do with that anyway."

SO many people make shit up about W. Most of them can't make up their mind if it's "Criminal Mastermind Day" or "Drooling Idiot Day" - thus signifying their real problem: anger that what they want isn't being delivered instantly.

Object to his existence if you want, but don't be ignorant in the process. The same media that exalted the current fellow is why you hate the previous one.

> Not sure why you threw in the non sequitur
> about "starting two wars"

A non-sequitur?... It's directly on point. Sober up and read it again.

> btw, Bush started the war in Afghanistan?
> Really?

Yes, Kitten, "really". No one on the surface of the globe thought the nation of Afghanistan posed an existential threat to the United States. (And it still doesn't.) But when that government proved recalcitrant in delivering OBL to us, Bush suggested that it would be worth our time to go in there and look for him. America agreeed. So we did. (See also, May 2, 2011).

For the righteousness of that first response, and for the continuing failure of all that followed, Bush deserves first consideration... If only for not rallying the American people to take a greater part in the effort.


There was a tale, which I'm sure my memory has embellished, from mid-September 2001. The United States had directed Afghanistan to deliver Osama Bin Laden, in as many words.

A few days later a delegation from the Afghanistan government appeared in full dress at our Kabul embassy (maybe a consulate) with a finely-worded response, formally explaining why this could not, or would not, be done.

The ambassador apologized (as I remember it, in his bathrobe) for his lack of hospitality, but their visit was unexpected, and their document was directly passed to the juniormost aide for perusal at his leisure.

The United States was not asking.

George W. Bush decided to do this. Democrats and liberals masturbate with the fantasy that if Gore had been president, it wouldn't have happened.

But they, and he, are idiots. You shouldn't offer them your company so promiscuously.

> There's a huge difference between taking
> some R&R at his privately-owned home and
> flying off to a resort in Hawaii, especially
> during a worldwide recession while
> consistently nagging everyone else to share
> the sacrifice.

I think not... But maybe I'm just a little twitchier than you are about certain kinds of difficulty, even for volunteers.

This is the condition of United States politics in our lifetime. Nearly every single fucker in the nation, and many in other nations, regards our government as the source and destination of everything that's worthwhile about the human species. But the figurehead and Chief Executive can indulge in any number of gratuitous indulgences and no one bats an eye.

Indulge indulgence. Sorry. Listen, I had pasta boiling over downstairs.

(Had pesto sauce on it. It was good, and thanks for asking.)

I will grant that the Anointed One can do his job from just about anywhere in the world.

But as a middle class, above median wage, earner in the the U.S. I get 17 PTO (Paid Time Off) days a year.(Plus 5 holiday days.) That is both my sick and vacation time. I am also expected to at least check my e-mail once a day on my PTO, under normal circumstances.

I have to burn off three days to get under this year's carry over of 80 hours. Next year I can only carry over 40 hours into 1/1/2013. So effectively I have to take off 22 days in 2012 to not lose any PTO. (It probably isn't happening.)

Meanwhile, the Anointed One was originally planning to spend 17 days in Hawaii. I don't know what the schedule is now between Michelle's early departure and the Congressional stuff on the tax bill.

That does not include Michelle's trip to Europe this summer. Then there were the 10 days in Martha's Vineyard.

These all cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a single trip.

Meanwhile he is expecting us to cut back.

KMA!

Not sure why you threw in the non sequitur
> about "starting two wars"

A non-sequitur?... It's directly on point. Sober up and read it again.

How, exactly? What on Earth does this have to do with Obama's vacation?

@Crid - Oh, and to your sanctimonious, condescending bullshit about Afghanistan:

No one on the surface of the globe thought the nation of Afghanistan posed an existential threat to the United States.

This is one of the more deluded, ignorant things I've seen in a long time.

> What on Earth does this have to do

Are you channeling, honey? Presidential vacations.

OK, thanks.