My grandfather's ranch was about 12 miles from the Bush compound, and it still had a party line phone and you could pick up only two local TV channels on the rabbit ears when he died 25 years ago. Apparently, Ms. Dowd still thinks that's the state of telecommiuncations in Central Texas five years into the 21st Century, and that there's no possible way to get work done, or keep in touch with the outside world, in such a philistine location.

Would that Ms. Dowd would take a similar vacation schedule--or maybe she already does.

I think it's funny that so many people are going "OMG! He gets FIVE weeks of vacation a year! Quel horreur!" I'm an entry level drone at a huge heartless multinational corporation and I get five weeks paid leave a year. I know that other jobs don't give as much, but how is that my problem?

She is a columnist. If she writes 3 columns a week, that is what, 2 1/2 hours of work per week.

Supposedly, Buckley writes his in 18 minutes.

Governor Breck:

I answer phones for a living (customer complaints!) and I probably get about 5 weeks a year. I don't have a clue why people expect the president to get less than that. That job is hard -- I don't want a stressed-out crabby workaholic having access to The Button, do you?

Dowdy just took, what, about a 3-month 'sabbatical'?

Can we assume that none of you are in charge of a nation in the middle of a war? A war that is killing an average of ten American soldiers per day.

Aaah, who cares about that. The underlings can manage to count the dead kids for a few weeks!

Tom: Ah, yes. You lose all charge if you leave D.C. If only the nation ACTED as if it were in the middle of a war.

And, while you're at it, might want to double check the math there. We've been at war for longer than 200 days.

We need a return to more humble presidential recreations. Bill Clinton could happily vacation right on the Oval Office carpet.

Tom Kelly:

That's the point; wherever Bush is, he's in charge.

He's not like a White House secretary, who can't do his job if he's not IN the White House.

Bush's "vacation" involves only a change of scenery.
He still gets the same daily briefings, makes the same decisions that he does every day in D.C.

A war that is killing an average of ten American soldiers per day.

A bit challenged in the basic math department, are we ?

The Iraqi pacification has been going on for ~900 days, and ~1900 American troops have been killed.

Most sixth-graders could figure out that an average of ~2 American soldiers have been killed per day, 400% fewer than you claim.

Yep ...Math is off. I'm responsible for absolutely the only bit of exaggeration on this website! I was trying to make a point folks.

I'm happy to know you can all count...now might some of us act as if the body counts actually matter.

Sometimes the impression of what a leader is doing is as important as what he IS doing. Which I believe is what Dowd was trying to say, even if she did get a bit vitriolic.

As for the comments about Clinton...that's exactly the sort of ridiculous jump in logic that makes political discussion impossible these days. Everything is an extreme right? The ONLY choice we have is between an amoral president or one who believe hs is responsible for all of our morals? (And No, I am not personally saying the the president believes he's responsible for all of our morals, but that is one of the arguments against him)

Can we possibly admit that Clinton (or any other non-Republican) has some good points and GW has some bad ones?

lonbud hurry back, the substitute trolls are getting overheated and losing their entertainment value.

Posted by: erp at August 26, 2005 4:42 PM

Tom Kelly:

This being a solely visual, printed format, you have to make your exaggerated points with rhetoric, not numerical figures.

No one can hear your tone of voice, nor see your body language.

The body counts DO matter - mostly because they're thankfully so low.

So far, we've liberated 50 million people while taking fatal casualties roughly equal to the number of people killed by firearms in the U.S. in ONE MONTH'S TIME.

Since 9/11, twenty times more Americans have died of complications from eating trans-fatty acids than have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

One of the points of taking out Saddam was to demonstrate to the world, and any potential American enemies, just how easy it would be for America to take out ANYONE.

We've demonstrated that in spades.

Thus, no soldier has fallen in vain in Iraq or Afghanistan; even if we discount the liberation of the Afghani and Iraqi peoples, those American troops died in the service of preventing future wars and American deaths, by intimidating future foes.

Peace through superior firepower is an historically tested and approved strategy.

Back when I was working on the web offset press for the Big Publishing Company, I got 5 weeks of vacation. It wasn't nearly enough, even counting the 8 sick days per year added on.

I tried to post this when the comments were down. I saved what I had typed, and thought it would be a good entry. Then Tom kelly shows up, and poof! guess what, "Yep...Math is off." Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Posted by: AllenS at August 26, 2005 5:17 PM

M.H.: "Most sixth-graders could figure out that an average of ~2 American soldiers have been killed per day, 400% fewer than you claim."

Correcting your correction: 2 is only 80% fewer than 10; 10 is 400% more than 2. 400% fewer would be -30, if that made sense. (And if I haven't made my own mistake.)

I didn't intend to be a troll. I came to the website through a book review and was intrigued because Orrin's pages showed that we shared many similar types of boyhood experiences.

I truly did not mean to start this...I never said (nor WOULD I say) anything about people dying in vain. And neither did I ever say that Bill Clinton was a model executive. You went there, not me.

It is interesting though that you'd feel compelled to argue that no one was dying in vain. Its also interesting that you'd feel compelled to shine a favorable light on the current president by comparing him to a clearly disgraced president.

I'll stop "trolling" now and leave you to your distorted visions of what it means to be an American. You can resume saving the world now. One dead American at a time.

Bill Woods:

You are correct.

That was my own exaggeration; I liked the affect of calculating it forward, rather than backwards.

G.W. Bush compares favorably to ANY U.S. President.

Those whom he isn't better than, he holds his own with.

I'll [...] leave you to your distorted visions of what it means to be an American. You can resume saving the world now. One dead American at a time.

Gee, I wonder why I'd "feel compelled to argue that no one was dying in vain" ?

Why do lefties feel compelled to dissemble ?

Tom Kelly CLEARLY feels that Americans are dying in vain, but for some reason, will not say so in so many words.

Perhaps because he has no reply to the plainly visible fact that those American deaths were of people who went willingly, and their actions resulted in 50 million freer people, plus a safer America.

How can you not like a President who personally traveled back in time to advise Washington to cross the Delaware, painted a picture of it, proved Goldbach's Conjecture, designed a hydrogen car that runs on water and returns electricity to the grid when not in service and then started turning wine into water to run it.

Hey, Tom's right. This is easier.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 26, 2005 6:41 PM