Still, there was debate over Mr. Bush's vacation within the White House. One group argued that the president should do whatever he wanted, while another, including Mr. Rove, said in essence that he should not.
[snip]
At this White House, Mr. Rove's views, which may well have been the president's views, prevailed, to no one's surprise. "What Karl advocated happened," said a Republican close to the White House. "I don't think any voting decision is going to be made on what the president did for three weeks in August, but there are people who believe very strongly that it created the wrong visuals. They didn't want those pictures."
Why is there even any debate on this topic, to the point that Karl Rove has to put his pudgy white foot down? With Bush trailing Kerry in nine of the eleven national polls conducted this month, a sub-50% approval rating in six out of seven current polls, and Fahrenheit 9/11 devastating all box office records for a documentary here and abroad, why would you even consider shambling around a faux ranch attacking defenseless brush for four weeks at the height of the campaign?
Monday, July 19, 2004
Vacation Debate
Last night I did a quick, snarky post about Bush cutting his vacation down to two weeks because of the presidential campaign. While re-reading Elisabeth Bumiller's article I realized that there was actually some measure of debate over whether the Chimpster should take his customary four weeks or not: