I remember the left's outrage over Bush playing golf in a time of war and it led to this.


"Obama plays more golf in 9 months than Bush did in his first 3 years"

I wonder if we'll get this same sincere outrage from the left about Obama golfing.

Economy in the tank.
Afghanistan a mess with 14 Americans killed today.
Unemployment rising again.
Health care up in the air.

And, he's golfing...with a woman because NOW said he was sexist.

A little pressure from NOW and he makes a decision, goes golfing with a woman.

Pressure from his General in charge of Afghanistan to finally make a decision and give troops the support they need and Obama....well...yells at him for pressuring him to make a decision.

This is leadership.

For the record, I agree with Bush's decision to give it up.

No one can work 24/7. Whether its playing golf or clearing brush in Crawford, there always has to be something else in your life, or your job performance will suffer.

I have no complaints about Bush's effort on the job post 9/11.

There was no left outrage over Bush playing golf, that's a strawman. I'm sure you're partially referencing the reaction to "We have to hunt down those terrorist thugs....now watch this drive", the mocking of which had nothing to do with the fact that Bush took a couple hours out of his day to hit the links.

And as a tangential point, does it REALLY make you feel good to wake up every morning and surf around looking for that day's anti-Obama conservative talking point no matter how mundane or intellectually dishonest? Because I admit I enjoyed it for a little while with Bush, but:

A. Only once he had clearly royally screwed up his Presidency
and
B. It got dull and hollow pretty quick

You sure about that one?

If there was, it was only from reactionary doofuses like you.

I suggest that the left criticized Bush for playing too much golf and for taking vacations that were too long.

You say they didn't.

I suggest they did.

And, you say that if they (the left) did, it was only from me??

Huh?

"Like you" referring to the likes of Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz. "Reactionary doofuses" both.

You see, you cannot simultaneously claim a vast, left-wing media bias, and then reference as evidence the biggest whack-jobs the left has to offer.

Are the Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, NBC news the "biggest whack-jobs the left has to offer"?

It's interesting that you went to name calling so quickly.

No, they aren't, and if you have the links showing them being "outraged" at Bush's golf-playing I will gladly concede the point.

Will you also apologize?

The fringe left mainly criticized Bush for golfing too much (remember also that Michael Moore was the one who disseminated and made fun of Bush the most on this). Now the fringe right has picked up the mantle. Nothing unusual.

No one made up the fact that Bush II took more vacation days in his time before 9/11 than most presidents had.

I don't think the criticism was that he spent too much time golfing, it was based on an answer he gave when asked about what he had personally sacrificed in the context of a discussion about sacrifices troops and their families were making in the Global War on Terror.

He said that he had stopped playing golf, but I think it's clear what he meant. Even his political enemies must acknowledge that he had a great personal concern for the troops. He wasn't a Marie Antoinette-type sitting in the White House fretting "We need to stop this war, because my short game is going to hell."

He spent his leisure time clearing brush on vacation in Crawford and mountain biking. There's nothing wrong with that, and there wouldn't be anything wrong with him playing golf. However, in a job where public relations matter, I can see how being photographed biking or clearing might look better than a picture playing the patrician game of golf. Obama spends his leisure time playing golf and basketball. Politically, there's much less risk in Obama coming across as Judge Smails if he's photographed with a nine-iron.

Longtime Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger told a story about how he had crafted a brilliant early campaign photo-op for Reagan. At the ranch, on his horse, sunset, real Marlboro Man stuff. Right before the photogs got there, Reagan rides up and Nofziger freaks out because he's wearing jodphurs (the tight little brown horsey pants that Amelia Earhart wore in "Night at the Museum 2.") Nofziger yells at him, and Reagan's incredulous, explaining that this is what you wear when you ride. Nofziger urges, "Go back inside and put on some JEANS!" Reagan wisely took his advice.

Do you consider yourself fringe left?

That's a great Reagan story.

While his comment in 2003 raised ire, Bush was continually hounded about the time he spent on vacation (even though people from all sides of the aisle must agree that no President is ever "on vacation" and not still working). The media tracked his days and drew conclusions about how much he cared about the troops in harms way and that he wasn't doing what needed to be done to win those wars. I'm not sure how anyone can contest this.

And, if Obama wasn't dragging his feet on Afghanistan while American troops are dying I'm not sure I'd care. But, it strikes me as absurd that he can put off, put off, put off a decision there and then blast his General in charge there for asking for a decision AND then spend more time golfing than Bush.

My prediction (this may be for another thread) is that no decision will come on Afghanistan until after he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize, which is in I believe about a month or so. He said that he will not be lowering the troop level, so it probably wouldn't look good if he ramped up troop levels right before accepting a PEACE prize.

Sadly, I think you might be correct.

If so, his image and ego go ahead of what's best for troops in harm's way.

I can not image the heat Bush would've taken for putting off a decision for months and months.

And, why rush with a Defense Appropriations bill that was due 2 months ago and now won't be passed until December???

My god.

Bush did not actually give up golf. He said he would but there are pictures of him golfing after he said he would.

I did not care that Bush golfed or mountain biked. I do not care that Obama golfs or plays basketball.

Why is this important? Did I claim that Bush spent too much time golfing?

I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at here: When the left says "well Bush was worse than Obama" it's stupid. When the right takes petty arguments that the left used previously it doesn't make them any more productive or less petty.

Or you could just come out and claim media bias, which I think is what you're getting at anyway.

Well, I don't consider you "fringe left" and you mentioned that:

"No one made up the fact that Bush II took more vacation days in his time before 9/11 than most presidents had."

My point is that the media chimed in with the absurd criticism of Bush while he was not delaying critical decisions on Iraq or Afghanistan.

And, yet, you hear no criticism of Obama for draggin his feet on Afghanistan while 14 troops were killed today. Heck, Obama and the dem leadership now said they won't even pass a defense appropriations bill until December????

Do you honestly think a peep of this will be mentioned by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, NY Times, etc?

That's my point.

But, you care enough to try to point out Bush's supposed hypocrisy on giving up golf?

Like I said, I thought media bias was your main point. No arguments from me. The media was obsessed with Bush II for many reasons, some legit and some not. Obama is certainly not put through the ringer in the the mainstream media, but he's drubbed from every side on the radio and in the other righty stuff.

As to Afghanistan, I just hope Obama makes a good, informed decision. I hope he does it quickly, but I'd rather it was smart than expeditious.

I pretty much agree completely.

If Obama wasn't dragging his feet on Afghanistan, calling out his top General for pressing for a decision and now giving indications that a defense appropriations bill won't happen until December (4 months late), I wouldn't care if he's playing golf naked.

Sure. Let's see what you've got.

Okay. Can you clarify what you want to see so the goalposts don't move?

Good post. I think the beating Bush received is thousands of times worse than anything Obama is getting from the radio/"other righty stuff." The hypocrisy is startling, even when you know it's a given.

The only thing I'll add is he won't do anything with the troops until health care is passed. He doesn't want the "progressives" to have their panties in a wad over the lack of a public option AND increased troops in Afghanistan. He's hoping to passify them enough with HC to make it easier to send in troops.

It's disgusting that our soldier's lives have been placed in limbo over stupid political arguments within the democratic party. Shame on them.

Alright, find me anything more critical than this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/politics/25vibe.html

written about George Bush's golfing habits, post 9/11, by one of the sources you listed, that is something more than a snarky comment in an opinion column, and you win.

To be fair, that article isn't very critical. The underlying complaint that is being made is petty and meritless, but the article itself seems to be directed to disproving the complaint, rather than criticizing Obama.

The part that I thought was funny was that they were complaining that no women were involved in the pickup game. As someone who has played a lot of basketball, I can say that it is fairly difficult to find a woman who can play in a game with men without severely damaging the competitiveness of the game. Given that, it's unlikely that any women on Obama's staff would be able to play. What, is he supposed to truck a few women in for the game so it looks more PC?

Hypocrisy bothers me.

But, that isn't what we originally disagreed about.

You called me a "reactionary doofus" and you claimed:

"There was no left outrage over Bush playing golf, that's a strawman."

The criticism of Bush's golf/vacation time only came from "the likes of Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz".

So, here are a few articles from just the Washington Post. You even admitted they don't qualify as "reactionary doofuses like Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz":

A highly important 2004 Washington Post Article

A highly important piece by the NY Times in the fall of 2006

A highly important Dan Froomkin column discussing Bush's vacation while Israeli bombed Lebanon.

A 2006 Froomkin column where he wondered if Bush would rather be fishing.

The "Vacation President"

And, this doesn't even count looking at the Post (a single source) during August of 2005 when Cindy Sheehan became the national hero of the media dn Bush was on vacation in Crawford, Tx.

How many appeared by October of his first year?

Your feigned outrage is outrageous.

How are the president playing a round of golf with some of his staff, and taking a month's vacation at home even remotely the same thing?

There's no denying that the mainstream media had begun to portray George Bush as a powerless lame duck by about 2006, but what you are alleging is that Obama is delaying making a wartime decision that affects American troops by carelessly wasting his time golfing. That's a far more serious charge and one that, perhaps partially because of both his decisiveness and secrecy, was never leveled at George Bush.

Obama has been criticized, I think often correctly, for spending too much time in front of the camera and not enough behind the scenes. But as for what he does in his few off hours, I think we ought to leave him well enough alone.

As for your sources, the only one that references golf is pre-9/11, so I'm afraid you haven't won the challenge.

How many wars was Bush in charge of in his first 9 months?

Your naivette is scary.

Are you serious?

Last time I checked, Bush didn't have a Joe Biden "depression" to navigate and two wars. You'd think that with the seriousness of these issues, he wouldn't put off making a decision on Afghanistan for fundraisers, golf and beer at the White House.

Try thinking a bit.

What a shock. You stick to your argument no matter what.

Obama was given unprecedented information by the Bush WH when they left 10 months ago and here we are waiting.

How in God's name can any president justify not making a decision for 10 months or not passing a freakin defensive appropriations bill for four months given what American troops are now facing?

That is my criticism. His priorities are mind-boggling asinine.

Well, if you take the administration at their word, they are waiting for want of more information and a more carefully developed strategy. That's a not entirely satisfactory but perfectly understandable explanation.

I think we'll both agree that the important thing is that the administration gets it right in the end, however its hardly fair to characterize Dems as willing to patiently wait forever just because Barack Obama tells them to.

For those of us that voted for the guy the honeymoon isn't over yet, but its certainly not indefinite. I'm doing a bit of toe tapping waiting for a foreign policy strategy myself.

I would have paid attention to the 8/6/01 pdb on my vacation.

How about you?

The US was attacked on his watch. Try thinking a bit.

And, how did the 8/6/01 pdb differ from previous ones?

Which was 8 years ago. When Obama took office, he had a "depression" and two wars.

What is so difficult to understand?

Fair enough. But, this isn't about gathering more information. This is about playing politics with his decision.

Count me in the category that trusts our Generals in the field and Petraeous more than Joe Biden and John Kerry.

Biden voted against the Gulf War, voted for the Iraq War and against the surge in Iraq.

The notion that these two buffoons should guide Obama's foreign policy decision in Afghanistan is utterly absurd.

Bloomberg is reporting that the economy grew at 3.2% last quarter.

Bush started one of those wars as a war of choice not of necessity and ignored Afghanistan into the morass it has become.

Next.

You mean the one entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"?

That was the August 6 memo presented to President Bush while in Crawford.

Wow. That was huge news.

That was well known long before 911 since OBL had said so for years.

Your tinfoil hat is too tight.

This is too much. You're asserting the economy isn't a mess? Do you seriously want to open up this can of worms?




You do realize that this doesn't change what Obama has on his plate right now?

Way to miss the point.

If Clinton would have allowed the transfer of OBL from Sudanese officials to the FBI, the 8/6/01 pbd would have been a lot different.

Let me use your words:

"HYPOCRISY BOTHERS ME!"

What planet do you live on?

Was Afghanistan a war of NECESSITY or a war of CHOICE? Also, did the troop surge in Iraq work successfully?

And, who else saw that pbd? Apparently, only George W. Bush.

This is beyond hypocrisy. This is stupidity.

Beyond the golf issue, which you rightly brought up, when is Obama actually going to learn/understand/realize that he has to govern?

All he knows how to do is campaign. Every. Single. Day. There is no break with this guy. Some days it's actually ok to sit in the Oval Office and call people and make decisions. The only positive is that if he keeps it up (which there are no signs that he plans on changing) there will be such overwhelming Obama Fatigue by 2012 that the "he's a great speaker" mantra isn't going to carry much weight and neither will his record of accomplishment.

Jimmy Carter has to be beside himself with giddiness watching as Obama is setting up to let him off the hook as the worst president in the modern era.

Afghanistan was a war of necessity. President Bush pulled out troops to fight a war of choice (Iraq) leaving an untenable situation in Afghanistan.

I fault Clinton, too. No hypocrisy with that, is there?