http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/
Apparently, according to CBS News, President Bush has spent approximately 20% (254 days) of his term at his ranch in Crawford. Add to that his time spent at Camp David and in Kennebunkport at the Bush Family Compound, and you're looking at more than 40% of his term. FORTY PERCENT!!!! No wonder the White House is "self-conscious" about those totals.
I guess it's true that US Government workers really do get off easy.
8 comments:
I know it's hard for you to believe, but unlike other white collar occupations (mortgage banking attorneys come to mind), the Presidency is set up so the President can work inside the office or elsewhere. So, for example, if the President needed to be in Crawford so someone from Sears could come and fix his diswasher, the President could work from Crawford and wouldn't be wasting his time smoking cigarettes on his patio.
Which brings me to a more important point: if the President is so terrible and everything he does is wrong, wouldn't you prefer him to take more time "off" rather than less? Presumably if he spent more time clearing overgrown nature walks on the ranch or falling off of Segways in Maine, he would have less time to anger our steadfast allies the French, sink our economy, and ruin the environment.
You have a great weekend.
Very funny -as is the rest of your writing!
First of all, thanks for the compliment! Even if Philip's neo-con comments tend to be more funny than my posts, and that may have been to what you were referring, but regardless, I say thank you.
Second, Philip, please stop wearing that Bush-Cheney '04 hat. It's clearly doing damage.
Whilst I agree that I would rather have Dubya no where near the White House or any other place where actual policy is created, he signed up for the job and got the Supreme Court to install him in the position. So, do your freaking job to the best of your ability! Also, if he's not doing his job, that means that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney ARE, which is even less palatable.
I think actually Condi and Colin are keeping things on track pretty well. Unless, of course you want to go back to the good old days of the Clinton Administration with its shameful lack of diversity in key administation posts.
Isn't it wonderful that our President nominated a descendant of the African Diaspora to the position first occupied by Thomas Jefferson, slave-raping hypocrite?
Good weekend, bethn8r.
Someone forgot to do his homework...
The Clinton administration made great strides in appointments that achieved diversity in race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation.
According to MSNBC, George Bush the First could find only one qualified woman, one African-American and two Hispanics for his Cabinet. Bill Clinton, apparently unbeknownst to you, nominated three black men, a black woman and two Hispanic men to join nine white Cabinet nominees — three of them women. It seems that some people consider the fact that George II has ANY diversity in his cabinet is a direct reflection on the push that his predecessor, Bill Clinton, A DEMOCRAT, made. In fact, Clinton's Administration was the most racially and ethnically diverse administration ever.
I'll also have you know that in Reagan and Bush Senior's 12 years in office, of the 545 federal judicial appointments, 65 were women, 22 Hispanic, two Asian American and 17 African American. In Clinton’s eight years, of 366 federal judicial appointments, 104 were women, 23 Hispanic, five Asian American, one American Indian, and 61 African American, including Clinton’s appointment of Roger Gregory, the first black judge to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. So it seems (can you believe it?!) that Democrats tend to be more succesful in the diversity arena.
But wait, here's a little something about Bush II:
Mr Bush's first choice for Secretary of Labor, Linda Chavez, was, according to Alison Mitchell of the New York Times, "a familiar and polarising figure from the nation's cultural wars." Any more winners? Read on...
Former Senator John Ashcroft just happened to block the first black member of Missouri's Supreme Court from being appointed to the federal bench. Oh, and let's see what he's done since...There was that report published in the New York Times in 2003 a consulting firm's report on diversity in the DOJ was released only in a heavily edited form in order to hide criticisms of diversity efforts. Apparently, the report showed that the Justice Department's "record on diversity [w]as seriously flawed, specifically in the hiring, promotion and retention of minority lawyers." What a great guy! No wonder the NAACP is such a big fan. Let's not even ask everyone who's been detained in violation of the Constitution since 9/11 how John Ashcroft feels about diversity.
This is so terrible, could there be more? Yes, I dare say there is.
John Bunzel from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University noted that since taking office, the Bush administration has made no effort to dismantle race-conscious programs. In the Michigan case, in an amicus brief the Bush administration refused to declare that race-based preferences were always unconstitutional. And, the Bush administration has not challenged the validity of race-based set-aside programs, fearing that to do so could alienate Hispanics and other groups whose support it needs in November.
Many people seem to think that Republicans tend to appoint a few chosen minority officials in highly visible posts, so they can wave them around and say, "Look, look how diverse we are!" while maintaining economic and social policies that punish, most notably, Black Americans. I believe this is sometimes referred to as "racial window-dressing." It might make a bigger statement of acceptance if Republicans would stop trying to keep minorities from voting...except for those primarily Hispanic ethnic groups mentioned above that tend to swing Republican - need I remind you what George II called his Hispanic grandchildren accidentally on camera?
Do your research before you comment on my blog, please.
And now, it's time to go to bed. And I sleep with a light heart, as I voted for the other guy.
Ouch. That was a really impressive listing, Bethany. Lots of stuff I did not know.
I'll lay off. You seem a little fired up and I don't think I'm really ever going to meet your "do your research before you post on my blog" standard.
Thank you Elin! And Philip, regardless of our differing views, you're still my dawg, right dawg?
(I hate that I just typed that out..twice. But the sentiment is true.)
Post a Comment