home

Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Years

USA Today reports that President Bush will be going to his Crawford, Texas ranch for "several weeks" when Congress recesses this week. It will be his 50th trip in 5 years to the ranch.

< Judge Calls Harsh Sentences 'Draconian' | Sunday Reading >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Gee, I sure wish I could work like Bush "works". Must be nice. Unfortunately, out here in the real world, people usually have to stay at their jobs all year long, and if they're lucky, they get about one week off per year. I find it amusing that these neo-cons who live for finding novel ways to get out of an honest day's work are the first to tell countries like France that they need to work longer and harder. Just another sign that those in power truly have no concept of the lives lead by those they supposedly govern.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    I was all set to defend Bush based on him doing so much work while on the ranch, but trying to find a link just exposes more sloth:
    "...Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003."
    As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms
    I won't be wearing wings for this thread.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#3)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    As does the Texas governor, so goes the Texas president... he's a figurehead. Other people are doing the real deeds of this administration (and have been for decades).

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#4)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    et al - Guess none of you folks ever heard of telecommuting....

    I wish W would take more time off instead of !@#$ing-up (messing-up) our country while he's at work with his 1)cash and carry federal government 2)enshrining the religious rights' code of conduct in federal law and 3) starting an immoral and financially bankrupting war on contrived and false evidence of WMDs and threats of mushrooms clouds. Remember this? "We don't want the smoking gun to be a...." My thoughts? "We donít either but I hardly think attacking Iraq has helped us one iota in delivering on that implied promise." It is reasonably clear now that 9/11 was retribution for putting our military in Saudi Arabia in 1991. (While the House of Saud authorized our military presence and we were there for a just war, we werenít effective assessing the risk associated with maintaining that position.) There is clear and convincing research that removing our military from Arab lands would bring about the end of suicide bombings. The tried and true foreign policy of "off-shore balancing" has worked for decades in the Middle East and is effective in protecting our interests. Why not take that approach now? Shame on W, Rice, TurdBlossom, Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons who took us to war on false pretenses with their arrogant sole-superpower rationale and their finger-in-the-eye foreign policy. Our unprecedented use of military power, not in the face of a credible threat - clear and present danger - but offensively! has many foreign governments (not to mention US congressmen and citizens) wondering: What doctrine is operative now for mobilizing US military force in foreign lands? Congress and US citizens have a right to know while US interests are served by informing foreign governments. This lingering threat provokes undesirable responses. In the age of nuclear weapons, it is counter-productive to maintain a military-use doctrine that includes unprovoked, offensive use of military force in foreign countries. Remind me, is making false testimony to congress on matters of national security an impeachable offense? If it is, then the administration should spend the next two years defending it's reprehensible behavior instead of passing bills that are giveaways to the gun lobby, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and defense contractors (didn't the GAO announce this week $9 Billion (thatís $9,000,000,000.00) of US taxpayer's dollars were embezzled from the Iraq rebuilding funds.) I say, stay in Crawford.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    et al - Guess none of you folks ever heard of telecommuting....
    Don't you ever get tired of defending this president-impostor, PPJ?

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#8)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    Come on TalkLeft, the ranch is were all the big money deals are made and Bush Can talk to all his good friends and make a lot of one world money doing it, after all Fox is his best friend in the world and drugs coming from afghanistan can to watched real well, like the 5,000 metric tones now inside our little business deal once called the USA. Opium anyone? bush just sent some in from the ranch. oh yes how many of you would like to march on His Ranch? and do the right thing?

    Sidney Blumenthal asserts that briefing Pres. Clinton was often difficult -- he usually knew as much or more than the briefer. Let's compare with the Chimp. Didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia a few weeks before illegally and genocidally invading a disarmed, under seal and no-fly-zoned Iraq. He's a real Know Nothing. Now look back at Clinton. And look over at Gore, or Kerry, who won the 2005 plebicite handily. Gore is plenty brainy -- he even wears earth tones. Kerry moped the floor with the Dope in the first debate, detail by uncountered detail. There have been few greater debate debacles in the history of the country. Stephen Douglas Bush is not. It is simply untrue that policy, and the understanding of that policy, is made by shadowy figures in a legitimate American government. Clinton can to this day explain his policies and ideas in almost overwhelming detail. So could FDR, JFK, or LBJ. So, to a lesser degree, could Bush 1, Reagan in his first term, Carter, Ford, and on down the list. Bush? Not only hasn't he been elected, he isn't qualified. He can hardly manufacture a sentence, his lies are so piled into each other, so mixed like faeces into a lumpy, smelly deposit on the listeners' ears, while he grimaces at the effort. He hasn't got a clue about most of what the robber-barons running his show are doing, other than the nasty bits. Those he knows about, the sadist bastard.

    As the Japanese used to say in the days of George Bush the Elder: Stupid, Lazy Americans need Stupid, Lazy President.

    Fred Dawes,

    You mentioned marching on Bush's ranch, well here are some of us who would love to. Check this out LINK

    Don't you just know how much this half fake-cowboy (half fake-warrior) lo-o-oves to say "I've got me a ranch!" Yeah, let's see how you ride a bronc, rope a steer.

    Then, on the other half, tell us all again what you did in the war. Come on, flyboy, Mr. Top Gun, tell us that war story again.

    Once a slacker, always a slacker!

    I always thought there is at least two things which show what a smart guy president Bush really is: 1. He avoided the Vietnam war as any sane person would had done, and 2. He takes long vacations like normal people (should) do.

    There ARE

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    AW Ė Itís just that you guys in your typical criticism make such a tempting target. Heís about as much on vacation at the ranch as the typical worker is in his home office, which means he isnít. Someone will always call, everyday there will be at least one ďmust be onĒ conference call, etc. So if you want to jump on Bush about CAFTA, about gay rights, about his not pushing for National Health care, his immigration policy/illegal aliens, save me a seat on the bus. But time spent at the ranch? No. So please accept my gentle ribbing. Ranting, once called letting off steam, is fun for some and basically harms only the person doing it. InTheAttic - Wrong. Please go to the Open Thread.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#16)
    by DavidDvorkin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    "President" heads for "ranch" for "working" vacation. Remaining honest media outlets report growing shortage of quotation marks.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#17)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    Ernesto - Those wonderfully smart, hard working Japanese have an economy which is in bad shape and a banking system that has so many bad loans in it that if they were all called the system would collapse. Just wanted to catch you up on the world.

    Jim could you provide some links? I just don't seem to recall you ever crossing the line. and yes if we are supposed to be at war, then I donít believe the President should be taking time off to jog around his ranch, play golf, and fall down on his bike. There are extremely important deadlines in Iraq (aug 1st, 15th) and appointments looming n Washington that need attention now. But right there is videoconferencing, why not just treat it like a sales meeting?

    Why shouldn'y he go off on vacation every week or three. He left Cheney back at the office to plan the next war, and an unprovoked nuclear attack to boot! Of course, Jim as his fellow Busheviks will claim this article is just moonshine from all those moonbats at The American Conservative.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#21)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    GregZ - Then you haven't been reading and/or paying attention. And I feel no need to defend myself on these issues. But, if you will contribute $20.00 in my name to TL, I will be happy to provide some links. Your turn.

    Posted by The Dark Avenger: "So I guess that Clinton was working harder, not smarter?" 18 US soldiers died under Clinton. Bush has killed 1,800, a 100:1 ratio. That's hard work.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#23)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    Paul in LA, I am seriously wondering if you are a Karl Rove plant. Keep up the good work, but try not to be too obvious; the Left are beginning to realize that "Chimpy" has been outmaneuvering them for years, and some of them are starting to wonder what that might indicate.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#24)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    PPJ, Intellectually dishonest as usual. Who do you think pays for the president's trips to the ranch for him AND his entourage? Do you think he pulls out a personal AMEX and charges everyone's airfare on a commercial flight and pays for it himself? Unless you have proof that he's reimbursing the nation for the costs entailed with these trips, he's making them on the public dime. That's another reason to be outraged.

    Jim how about you make your own donations and I will make my own contributions. You constantly state that you are somehow liberal on social issues. I for one haven't seen it and its a damn shame you can't even defend your own points.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#26)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    Randy Paul - The fact that the taxpayers pay for Presidential travel is not news to most of us. I guess you were shocked. I would agree that maybe that Presidentís should fill out a Travel Authorization (TA) and Expense Report. Question is, who would approve/disapprove them? BTW - I have spent hours on 101 in Silicon Valley, blocked, while Algore was begging money from the industry he invented. I actually missed a flight one time from San Jose. I was po'd, so I can, as I noted in my first post, relate to your anger. It did me as much good as your anger does you.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#27)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    PPJ, Like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, you can be counted on to miss the point or deliberately ignore it. The question is 50 (FIFTY) times in 4.5 years, Jimbo. That's a lot of taxpayer money being wasted on this. It's indefensible. BTW, I was flying from Newark to St. Louis one afternoon and because Reagan was flying from Newark, my flight was canceled leaving me to subsequently fly from Newark to Charlotte where I missed my connection and then from Charlotte to Atlanta where I caught a flight to St' Louis and arrived 12 hours late. I was more offended by Reagan's 12 vacations in his first twenty months in office at taxpayer expense than by his decision to visit McGuire AFB that day. The president could lead by example and consider the impression that his actions are leaving. Unfortunately, when one is so totally enamored with one's own perfection as Bush seems to be, it would be highly unlikely that he would deny himself anything. Let's not forget he made his fortune at the government teat, so his continued lapping at it should surprise no one.

    Those wonderfully smart, hard working Japanese have an economy which is in bad shape and a banking system that has so many bad loans in it that if they were all called the system would collapse.
    And we're doing so much better in that regard are we? BTW...is their entire economy dependent of the commie Chinese? And like I said earlier...you got the prez you deserve.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    GregZ - So you're not willing to back up your accusations with some dollars? As they say in LV, money talks and BS walks. Hope you enjoy your stroll. Ernesto - Didn't claim we were, but yes, we are. Randy Paul - My point is still... A President is never really on vacation. You know that. I know that

    Jim, please, I will give to TL when I wish-thats between TL and me, I surly am not going to pay for your recycled and plagiarized arguments.

    "A President is never really on vacation." PPJ

    "Now...WATCH THIS DRIVE!" Bush, August of 2001

    And you "know that", PPJ? How could you possibly know that, unless...are you stalking the president?

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#32)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    GregZ`- Trying to change the subject? This is from your 8:53AM comment.
    Jim could you provide some links? I just don't seem to recall you ever crossing the line.
    You accused me of not supporting liberal causes and you demanded links. I'll be happy to research and provide the links, but would like to be paid for my time doing work you want done. Since there is no easy way for you to pay me, I suggest you make a donation to TL in my name. So it is not a donation to TL in GregZ's name. Surely proving me wrong is worth $20.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#33)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    GregZ, The reason a link will not be provided is because it does'nt exist. I remember another time that your sentiments were expressed by someone else and the person in question's response was "it's because of the subject matter". I'm starting to think that Bush is secretly a "Social Libertarian" and that is the reason for the unwavering support by you-know-who. Another theory is that the "person who gambles" is really a ultra right wing Republican. Which one makes more sense? By the way, I'm not sure if some around here have been informed, but the "War On Terror" is now being called something else. Seems like the war analogy is not working too good. Link Also,looks like Bush is trying to put the vacation days record out of any possible reach with more vacation days than even a 3-term President.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#34)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    So, is every thread about ppj now?

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    So, is every thread about ppj now?
    I could start ragging on Paul in LA, if you'd like. Henry Kissinger said it'd be OK to take the thread further off topic.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#36)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Desertswine, Did'nt you follow my link? I thought it was a pretty good article. Anybody? On topic, I think the number I heard was 500+ days of vacation, more than even his Daddy.

    Chupetin-I checked your link. I had heard about this a couple of days ago, and the CS Moniter article was very good. I had wondered about Blair's use of the term "fanaticism". Now I get it.

    We know now what Bush will be spending his vacation "working" on. Repeating the mantra, I mean words, "struggle against violent extremism" over and over, until he gets it right.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#38)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Chupetin - I make you the same offer. And we're not talking "link." We are talking links. Come on. You boys talked the talk, so let's see you walk the walk and prove me wrong. $20. That's all it takes.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#39)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    My point is still... A President is never really on vacation. You know that. I know that Really? It certainly seems he was on vacation when he ignored the 8/6/01 PDB. Consider the following in light of the August 6, 2001 PDB:
    1.) Why did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld threaten to urge a veto on September 9, 2001 if the Senate diverted $600 million from missile defense to counter-terrorism? 2.) Why, on September 10, 2001 did Attorney General Ashcroft submit a 31 page budget request to OMB that made no virtually no mention of counter-terrorism except to eliminate $65 million for counter-terrorism equipment grants and "did not recommend the budget enhancements requested by the FBI for 'Foreign Language Services,' 'Counter-terrorism Field Investigations,' and 'Intelligence Production (Field and HQs Intelligence Research Specialists),' totaling $57,814,000?"
    Not just on vacation: out to lunch.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#41)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Please note that the strategy for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda has worked amazingly well and in record time. Al Qaeda is virtually non-existent now thanks to the Bush administration's brilliant strategy. We should all join Jim in praising Bush for this great achievement.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#42)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    Has there ever been a president more des erving of a vacation? The war in Iraq is going great, our economy is growing like crazy,his Social Security plan is a winner, we are well on our way to Mars, our national debt is minuscule and terrorism is virtually non-existent. He has returned honor and integrity to the White House and united a country. After all these achievements we really should'nt complain about any vacation time that he takes.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#43)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    It's not as if he were in Crawford letting Turdblossom run the country. And of all the pre-911 talk, I refuse to blame that on any one person, but I'm not sure Clinton did anything at all to prevent before or retaliate after the first wtc bombing, or the okc bombing for that matter. Perhaps that's when it should have been addressed. But, as is clearly obvious, he nor Bush had a crystal ball. Therefore, to me, neither is to blame.

    Re: Bush: Headed Off to Ranch for 50th Time in 5 Y (none / 0) (#44)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    PPJ, [BIG YAWN] Still didn't answer my two questions regarding Rumsfeld and Ashcroft nor have you provided a rationale for Bush vacationing on the public teat. Typical.