PDA

View Full Version : Give Obama a break



Teh One Who Knocks
08-22-2011, 06:57 PM
By David Frum, Special to CNN
Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.


Washington (CNN) -- How do you score partisan points against a president who looks to have won a military victory in Libya at very low cost? Simple: Attack him for being away from Washington at a summer house when the victory was won.

That line of attack was tested by some Republican talkers and bloggers this weekend. I wonder if we'll hear more of it in the coming days.

Almost nothing in American politics drives more people to say more ridiculous things than the subject of presidential summer vacations.

Back during the George W. Bush years, Democrats sneered and scoffed at the 43rd president's extended visits to his Crawford, Texas, ranch. Where was the guy's work ethic?

Now the shoe is on the other foot. President Barack Obama has, for the second summer in a row, rented an expensive compound on the Atlantic island of Martha's Vineyard. What a snob!

Let's dial back and introduce some reality to this partisan point-scoring.

The president of the United States never gets a vacation, not really. The nuclear football follows wherever the president goes. He receives the daily intelligence briefing every morning, including Christmas. The decisions never stop, the cares of state never lighten, the burden of responsibility is never lifted.

When a president goes "on vacation," here's what happens:

1) He or she is spared the ceremonial parts of the job: the state dinners, the meetings with the girl who sold the most Girl Scout cookies that year, that kind of thing;

2) The other members of the first family are liberated from living inside the White House, aptly described by Harry Truman as "the crown jewel of the federal prison system."

But this game of tallying "vacation days" to make a point about presidential work ethic tells us nothing. Franklin Roosevelt devised the concept of Lend Lease, which provided aid to Britain and other nations in the early years of World War II, while on a two-week cruise through the Caribbean in December 1940. That seems a very good week's work -- even if he also managed to find time for a little sunbathing.

We don't measure presidential productivity by hours spent behind a desk in Washington. We measure by results.

Even sillier than complaints about days away from Washington is the tit for tat whereby presidential vacations are used by one set of partisans to depict another set of partisans as "out of touch."

This summer Republicans urge Americans to be shocked that Obama rented a vacation house that reportedly goes for $50,000 a week. Five years ago, Democrats wanted Americans to be shocked that Bush took his vacations on a 1,200-acre hobby ranch. Before that ... it was Bill Clinton again on Martha's Vineyard, and before that it was the elder Bush at his Kennebunkport, Maine, compound, and so on and on.

The ironies jump out here.

The holidays that raise the most serious concerns are those taken by the poorest presidents, not the richest.

Truman was probably the poorest president of the 20th century. He took 11 vacations on U.S. Navy property in Key West, Florida, where a large and pleasant lodge house was made available to the president and his poker-playing friends.

Truman paid nothing for the use of the house, which still stands as a museum.

As president, Clinton had little more wealth to his name than Truman. He accepted the use of the vacation homes of supporters, a deviation from the usual rules that strongly frown on presidents accepting valuable gifts for their own use.

By contrast, both Obama and George W. Bush paid their own way. Isn't that better?

Apparently not. As the country has become more ideologically polarized, even vacation choices have become opportunities for culture war, for battles over who is a real authentic American and who is an out-of-touch East Coast elitist or alternatively phony cowboy.

Is this not nuts? There's only one president at a time, occupying the toughest job in the world. If they like to clear brush, let them clear brush. If they like to bike on the beach, then go ahead. Leave them be.

A tense, edgy, unhappy and overtired president is good for nobody.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

MrsM
08-22-2011, 07:07 PM
:popcorn:

PorkChopSandwiches
08-22-2011, 07:15 PM
won a military victory? Is that what we are calling it?

PorkChopSandwiches
08-22-2011, 07:17 PM
Bwhahahahahah

We don't measure presidential productivity by hours spent behind a desk in Washington. We measure by results.

RBP
08-22-2011, 07:17 PM
won a military victory? Is that what we are calling it?

I was wondering the same thing. :-k


The vacations don't bother me. He's President ffs.

RBP
08-22-2011, 07:18 PM
Bwhahahahahah

I think his vacations are the least of our concerns. :lol:

Acid Trip
08-22-2011, 07:18 PM
By David Frum, Special to CNN
Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.


Washington (CNN) -- How do you score partisan points against a president who looks to have won a military victory in Libya at very low cost? Simple: Attack him for being away from Washington at a summer house when the victory was won.

That line of attack was tested by some Republican talkers and bloggers this weekend. I wonder if we'll hear more of it in the coming days.

Almost nothing in American politics drives more people to say more ridiculous things than the subject of presidential summer vacations.

Back during the George W. Bush years, Democrats sneered and scoffed at the 43rd president's extended visits to his Crawford, Texas, ranch. Where was the guy's work ethic?

Now the shoe is on the other foot. President Barack Obama has, for the second summer in a row, rented an expensive compound on the Atlantic island of Martha's Vineyard. What a snob!

Let's dial back and introduce some reality to this partisan point-scoring.

The president of the United States never gets a vacation, not really. The nuclear football follows wherever the president goes. He receives the daily intelligence briefing every morning, including Christmas. The decisions never stop, the cares of state never lighten, the burden of responsibility is never lifted.

When a president goes "on vacation," here's what happens:

1) He or she is spared the ceremonial parts of the job: the state dinners, the meetings with the girl who sold the most Girl Scout cookies that year, that kind of thing;

2) The other members of the first family are liberated from living inside the White House, aptly described by Harry Truman as "the crown jewel of the federal prison system."

But this game of tallying "vacation days" to make a point about presidential work ethic tells us nothing. Franklin Roosevelt devised the concept of Lend Lease, which provided aid to Britain and other nations in the early years of World War II, while on a two-week cruise through the Caribbean in December 1940. That seems a very good week's work -- even if he also managed to find time for a little sunbathing.

We don't measure presidential productivity by hours spent behind a desk in Washington. We measure by results.

Even sillier than complaints about days away from Washington is the tit for tat whereby presidential vacations are used by one set of partisans to depict another set of partisans as "out of touch."

This summer Republicans urge Americans to be shocked that Obama rented a vacation house that reportedly goes for $50,000 a week. Five years ago, Democrats wanted Americans to be shocked that Bush took his vacations on a 1,200-acre hobby ranch. Before that ... it was Bill Clinton again on Martha's Vineyard, and before that it was the elder Bush at his Kennebunkport, Maine, compound, and so on and on.

The ironies jump out here.

The holidays that raise the most serious concerns are those taken by the poorest presidents, not the richest.

Truman was probably the poorest president of the 20th century. He took 11 vacations on U.S. Navy property in Key West, Florida, where a large and pleasant lodge house was made available to the president and his poker-playing friends.

Truman paid nothing for the use of the house, which still stands as a museum.

As president, Clinton had little more wealth to his name than Truman. He accepted the use of the vacation homes of supporters, a deviation from the usual rules that strongly frown on presidents accepting valuable gifts for their own use.

By contrast, both Obama and George W. Bush paid their own way. Isn't that better?

Apparently not. As the country has become more ideologically polarized, even vacation choices have become opportunities for culture war, for battles over who is a real authentic American and who is an out-of-touch East Coast elitist or alternatively phony cowboy.

Is this not nuts? There's only one president at a time, occupying the toughest job in the world. If they like to clear brush, let them clear brush. If they like to bike on the beach, then go ahead. Leave them be.

A tense, edgy, unhappy and overtired president is good for nobody.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

:ghey:

The poor President works sooooooo hard guys! He needs these vacations to recharge his batteries!

What-the-fuck-ever. It's a 4 to 8 year job after which he'll never have to work again. Sounds like a pretty fly gig if you ask me. If we had people with actual work ethic in the White House it would be a different story. All we have ever gotten is professional politicians who are big on talk and small on actions.

FBD
08-22-2011, 09:00 PM
hahaha what a piece of crap from Frump!

Has he taken his foot out of his mouth from the "results" comment yet? :lol:

Deepsepia
08-22-2011, 09:14 PM
won a military victory? Is that what we are calling it?

Its a military result that we've sought since Ronald Reagan was President.

Call it a "long desired outcome" if you prefer.

And I'd note that we've got another "long desired outcome" this year, which made the hate-Obama crew so uncomfortable that they decided to forget it immediately: Bin Laden's dead . . . but that raised nary a glimmer in the Fox Nation save "a victory for Bush Administration policies"

The "Obama is the Antichrist" team starts with a conclusion, and maintains a remarkably stoic commitment to ignorance of any data that might inform them otherwise.

The President's vacation?

Why does anyone care?

What is it that the critics imagine that he should be doing now?

Seems to me that the nation and the markets could use a vacation from politics, even more than the politicians. . .

FBD
08-22-2011, 09:32 PM
Regardless of whether or not "its a military result we've sought" in the past - since when were we actively trying to take him out prior to "arab spring?" Probably since...oh, he gave up his WMD program after he saw what happened to Saddam?

Either way, you cant honestly call it "a military victory for Obama." At least not if you want to be honest with yourself.

We've yet to see if it can in any way be considered a victory for the libyan people - the new constitution they're drafting up, the muslim brotherhood made sure that it was almost entirely based on sharia.





Also given the information that's came out about the OBL raid...it is testament to the fuzzy raisins in between Obama's legs that he needed to be railroaded into approving the operation - and then in another intelligence failure, gives the order to only kill!!! That is one of the weakest moves ever - he simply did not want to deal with the Red Cross and the huge muslim outlash over OBL's captivity! Kill him, we dont need any of that intelligence...and we'd probably have to waterboard him to get it..no wait we dont use that anymore...oh well, I guess we wont be able to get any information out of him. Kill him. And we find out after the fact that they *very* easily could have taken him alive.


That's kinda like crediting Mookie Wilson's crushing hit with winning the 86 world series :lol:

Deepsepia
08-23-2011, 12:13 AM
Either way, you cant honestly call it "a military victory for Obama." At least not if you want to be honest with yourself.

Let's see: last I checked the right wing (and the left) was excoriating Obama for fighting an undeclared war in Libya.

So the Fox Nation is certain that Obama is fighting an "illegal war" in Libya when things are going badly, but then equally certain that there's no "military victory" when we win.



Conservatives Line Up Opposition to Libyan War
Republican Says Action in Libya is an 'Affront' to the U.S. Constitution

A senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee escalated his party's attacks on the Obama's administration's military action in Libya, calling the move unconstitutional.

“The United States does not have a King's army," Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) said in a statement released Monday evening. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution.
http://nation.foxnews.com/libya/2011/03/22/conservatives-line-opposition-libyan-war


In the bizarro world of the right, Obama can only lose wars . . . if we kill bin Laden, that was "the Bush Administration policies" . . . and if the US bombs Qaddaffi and supplies Libyan insurgents and they win . . . well I guess that must be "a victory for Reagan Administration policies"

Personally, I want the US out of all these rotten places, but its only fair to say: "we got what we were aiming for in Libya"

Southern Belle
08-23-2011, 12:20 AM
At least Ghaddaffi is on the way out.

FBD
08-23-2011, 01:47 AM
:lol: deep, you just dont want to accept that Obama can only "present" himself as Presidential - he can barely talk the talk, but he sure as fug cannot walk the walk.

Godfather
08-23-2011, 07:18 AM
:ghey:

The poor President works sooooooo hard guys! He needs these vacations to recharge his batteries!

What-the-fuck-ever. It's a 4 to 8 year job after which he'll never have to work again. Sounds like a pretty fly gig if you ask me. If we had people with actual work ethic in the White House it would be a different story. All we have ever gotten is professional politicians who are big on talk and small on actions.

Fuuuuuuuck that. I wouldn't do it. No way is it worth $500,000 or even $1 million a year for what is demanded of you.... Seems naive to think the job is that easy and pressure free: One person expected to lead a nation that vast and fragmented, with unreasonable demands of every sort. So much pressure, ridiculous hours, restrictions on you and your family's life, knowing tens of millions of people will scrutinize you for any number of reasons regardless of how you perform, being blamed for decisions you had little to do with.... and ultimately you will make decisions that will get people killed.

I'm not defending any president... but the title and fancy food is nothing.

DemonGeminiX
08-23-2011, 09:31 AM
Give me a break!
Give me a break!
Break me off a piece of that Kit-Kat bar!!!