Friday, December 26, 2008
Goose, gander question of the day
Here's a good question for any of the mainstream media folks who trip over this blog on their way to somewhere else:
I hate to go all Grinchy the day after Christmas, but can anyone tell me why is it okay for Barack Obama to spend Christmas during the worst economic downturn in decades in the course of which thousands of Americans face losing their homes in Hawaii in a 9 million dollar house body surfing and playing golf when it is not okay for the leader of the free world who has been presiding over two wars for several years to clear brush at the rather modest ranch he owns in Texas during hurricane season?
Well, duh. It's not what you do, it's how you do it. And, of course, what party you are.
8 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Fri Dec 26, 11:31:00 PM:
I could rationally accept the vacation...if a millionaire wants to go to Hawaii for Christmas...Godspeed.
Besides, he really isn't the President-elect...George Soros is. so what does it matter?
What really fills my craw is the media fawning over bare-chested swimsuit pictures of this rather scrawny fellow as if he were the new James Bond. PLEASE!!Can we just have news and politics....minus the cult worship!!
By 
, at
Sat Dec 27, 01:43:00 AM:
For the same reason Bush's physical fitness was a measure of his elitist mentality and out of touch nature, while Obama's Adonis like chiseled abs are, ummm... I'll be in my bunk.
By Mystery Meat, at
Sat Dec 27, 11:18:00 AM:
I remember that during the 1991 recession, newscasts would invariably follow announcements of bad economic news with George H.W. Bush tooling around in a golf cart.
But then, Obama is not the president yet. He is not even a senator anymore.
By , at
Sat Dec 27, 12:54:00 PM:
Whenever I have heard people mocking Bush's brush clearing vacations, it isn't "He's clearing brush," it is "He's clearing brush AGAIN."
Perhaps relevant
But of course, why explain something with reality-based criticism ("regular presidents don't get 25% time off...",) when you can use blanket partisanship instead.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Dec 27, 01:46:00 PM:
Perhaps you're unaware that there is video conference equipment, secure communications, and secure housing for foreign and domestic officials located at the 'ranch' for those who wish to confer with the President at an out of the way location without being hounded by press, and it is used for such purposes often. It was, for example, where he first conferred with President Putin in 2001. Bob Woodward has written about several high level military planning meetings held there, away from aides and snooping reporters.
It's not even a secret.
But I guess it's easier for you to believe that the President really does spends 1/4 of his time jerking off at his property in Nowhere, Texas, rather than keep the realities and, dare I say, nuances of the situation in mind.
Reality-based... If you were really going to use 'reality' as a judging mechanism, you'd have paid attention for the last *eight years* and known that President Bush has used his retreats as a tool of statecraft since the beginning of his first term.
But you'd rather use a hit piece as your 'reality.' An openly partisan Op-Ed from a 2-bit reporter at the Daily Iowan? A *student* newspaper? Really? Do you get all of your information this way?
By , at
Sat Dec 27, 11:12:00 PM:
And don't forget that in 1990, at the time of the Saddamite invasion of Kuwait, Bush 41 was criticized for being out and about on his cigarette boat off Kennebunkport. On the other hand, Clinton never faced such criticism for his vacations.
By chuckchuck, at
Sun Dec 28, 02:32:00 AM:
Maybe the guy needs a rest before he hits the meal grinder next month.
By , at
Sun Dec 28, 03:55:00 PM:
YOUR A MEAN ONE MR OBAMA,YOU REALY ARE A HEEL,YOUR AS CUDDLY AS A CACTUS AND AS CHARMING AS A EEL,MR OBAMA,YOUR A BAD BANNANA WITH A GREASEY BLACK PEEL, and thats bad
