The Bush-on-Vacation trivia is kind of interesting, but I think it is too often used as a partisan cudgel.

First, has it been established that we are worse off the less W is in the Oval Office? Are we really pining for him to be up late pouring over reports? I suppose some to the left-of-center long for the days of Clinton's wonkish interest in minutiae, but for me, the less time Bush spends drafting his ever-expanding government, the better.

Second, it implies that the presidency is not a 24-7 gig, which it is in a limited sense. The President is always accessible (even if he's reading a story to children), and the drastic improvements in communications (even since Reagan's Admin) mean that he can follow and respond to emergent or emergency situations from anywhere in the world. And IIRC, the President still gets daily briefings even when he is away from the WH.

I'd allow, and in many cases join, criticisms that Bush is not doing a competent job, but I think it is inaccurate to point to his vacations as contributing factors.

I guess either of those arguments are valid, but I would suggest you can't have both of them together. Either we're better off when he's gone because he doesn't have as much of a chance to do more damage; or he's not really gone because it's a 24/7 gig that follows you wherever you are.

Good point. I suppose the second argument is elastic; one could bring a variable amount of work with oneself, but I don't think the cabinet is down in Crawford.

Doug,

I don't think your either/or dichotomy is correct. I am happy when legislators and Presidents are on vacation because it means they have less time to be proactive--pass legislation, say stupid things, take my money, fight with each other on TV and interrupt my sitcoms.

I am happy the President gets daily briefings, particularly on things like security, so that he remains sufficiently reactive, i.e. if there is a major national crisis he can respond effectively. I don't want him to take a real vacation where, if a war broke out in France, he would say "nah, let it wait until Monday", but I also don't want him in Washington 24/7 thinking of more and more actively big-government things to do.

I think that you can have both, at least to some extent.

Bad Bush. Even Clinton stayed in the Oval office while inventing new kinds of cigar humidors and parsing what really constitutes sex.

For an interesting comparison, check out the US House calendar for this year. By my count, assuming the House session lasts right up to Thanksgiving (which is probably generous but not too far off), they have 77 days of "vacation" each year. Multiply that by four and a half years, and you get 346 days off.

So, can someone tell me where the raw data is for these "days of vacation" counts?
There's a Yahoo! Q&A page that says Bush the Elder was on vacation for over 540 days. I kinda doubt that.
But neither the WaPost nor Yahoo! cites a source. So, where does one validate such things?

... assuming that it's even relevant...

What discussion of Bush vacations is complete without mention of Clinton/Lewinsky? Thanks, Bindare!