Obama's immaculate inauguration is going to cost $150 million, but there are no stories on how many starving people you could feed for that.... like there were for Bush.
That's the Obama butt-kissing media for you.
32 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you criticizing the expenditure or are you merely unhappy because there was complaints about Bush's expenses and there aren't about Obama's?
I'm merely pointing out media's hypocrisy.
And what's with the whole "worship the king" business, Mom2? Who, exactly, is worshiping whom, and who, exactly is the king? I keep hearing this idea that somehow those of us who supported Obama for President are somehow so taken with him that we worship him. For once, I would like actual evidence for this assertion. Not an opinion piece, mind you. Real, solid evidence from, say a person who claims that he or she represents an organization put together to worship Barack Obama and declare him king.
“Many have wondered whether, given the war and all of our security challenges right now, it’s appropriate to have a lavish and expensive inaugural celebration?”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Laura Bush in a taped interview shown on the January 20 Good Morning America.
“President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
“On World News Tonight/Sunday,President Bush prepares for his second inauguration. In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?”
— ABC’s Terry Moran on World News Tonight, January 16.
The Associated Press wasn't to be left out:
The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?
Not to be outdone, Salon ballyhooed the security concerns and absolutely tore Bush's inauguration to shreds:
And it might have been helpful in the limited media debate that did take place about the inauguration's costs to point out that if the $40 million to $50 million raised for the GOP's parties had been donated to the war effort, as some have suggested, the money would have covered only about six hours of the U.S. military's operations in Iraq.
Oh, and don't forget ABC's dirty trick:
“For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.”
—Announcement posted on the ABC News Web site on January 19 and captured by blogger John Hinderaker.
Now lets replace the references to the Iraq war with references to the recession.
These are quotes, stories and headlines we will never see this year. But it's OK they're just slamming Bush. But when it comes to the chosen one the headlines are a little different.
Tuesday's AP headline by Laurie Kellman:
“For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy." [via]
So you guys are right, let's piss away $150 million. It's not really that much. The answer to what is the right amount to spend on a coro (sorry)inauguration is as close to zero as possible. I don't care who, the whole thing strikes me as a waste. As a comparison $150,000,000 would cover 750 Habitat for Humanity houses, (about 15 years at our current rate of 50 a year), wouldn't that be a better expenditure?
By the way, who exactly is Gene Robinson going to be praying to anyway?
Yet, Obama has never said he is a "war President", which Bush has done incessantly. Obama has never tied every little thing he plans to do either to the war in Iraq, or worse, 9/11, which Bush has also done, incessantly.
Obama has actually visited injured troops in underfunded veterans hospitals. Bush? I don't recall, but he certainly hasn't been to a funeral, and his Defense Department has banned photographs of flagged-draped coffins from being released.
So, on the one hand, yes, the press did criticize Bush's second inaugural; yet, they did so based on his own definition of the kind of President he was, and the times in which he lived. Obama isn't being so criticized, because he doesn't see himself the way Bush did, and hasn't defined his Presidency that way.
Enjoy the glitz, screw the economy. Actually, this is the perfect metaphor for what the first Obama term is going to be.
For the record, I find it repugnant the GW spent $42,000,000 on his second inauguration. As well as the money spent on the conventions. As I said that's a lot of families in decent affordable housing. But, what do I know.
If you have taken a vow and are living a life of poverty and are condemning excessive spending, you may have a point. Otherwise, it would seem you risk sounding hypocritical.
This line of complaints just sounds like sour grapes from sore losers.
When he has started creating policy you disagree with, by all means, start criticizing those policies.
But this is just small, people. Are you so shallow as to attempt to piss on other people's parade in an effort to make folk feel as unhappy as you seem to feel? You're better than this, people.
Pure conjecture.
No, Dan. Not whining... outrage at the media's hypocrisy. Democrats were the poster-child of sore losers when Al Gore lost in 2000. He lost every count. But beyond that, by challenging the result with repeated and law suits he effectively split this nation in two. And the politics in Washington these last 8 years have been both rancorous and damaging to this nation.
Sore losers? Not hardly. You didn't see republicans challenging this election. But you still saw a Democrat trying desperately to steal an election. And you saw the Democrat party actively support his effort.
Interesting theory. Are you basing that on anything?
Context matters.
Whatever your motives to post little rants like this, it just comes across as small-minded and petty. Again, I ask you (for your own sake, as most of us don't care what you think), share some of that grace which has been so abundantly shared with you. Get your mind out of the gutter of rancor, it's only making you dirty, not Obama or the rest of us.
Considering the near-deification of George W. Bush, especially in the weeks and months following 9/11, by conservatives, I find it more than amusing that some conservatives insist that liberals "worship" the "messiah", when in fact American conservatives have been doing exactly that to their very false and fallen idol who will finally fade from the scene in four days. We liberals, both faithful and secular, share this much with one another - we do not mistake a fallible human being for a god, or a President for a king. One does not expect blood from a stone, nor miraculous change from a politician.
$150,000,000 is a pittance, really. Considering the amount of money the Bush Administration has squandered on everything from no-bid contracts resulting in bad conditions here and abroad to hiring people unfit for their jobs (we pay their salaries, so it might be nice to have them be, at the very least, qualified to do the jobs they are hired to do), I think tossing a little cash around to send the Republicans home and see the Democrats in, in some kind of style is the least we can do.
The claim is as preposterous as your gripe about Bush appointees being "unfit for their jobs" when there is next to nothing to suggest that Barack Obama is remotely qualified to be president.
Now, Dan:
Have some grace, folk, this inauguration is a HUGE deal for tens (hundreds??) of millions around the world. Never has an incoming president generated as much joyous excitement as Obama has.
Do you care to explain why so many millions are supposedly so joyous about Obama's inauguration?
It can't be because of any clean break from Bush's domestic policies, because no such break exists. Bush has repeatedly supported government bailouts -- a position that infuriates fiscal conservatives -- and Obama is poised to do the same, as he has recently claimed that only government is capable of improving the economy.
It can't be because of any clean break from Bush's foreign policy, either, because no such break exists. Obama ran for the Dem nomination on the premise that he had better judgment than Hillary Clinton in opposing the Iraq war, but he has since picked Hillary to be his Secretary of State. And he's keeping Bush's Secretary of Defense. AND it appears that he wants to have a surge of military strength in Afghanistan, precisely the sort of strategy that he opposed and whose success he denied.
Unless Obama's fans are ignorant -- a real possibility, but one I doubt you'd consider, Dan -- there are only two plausible reasons for the joy at Obama's inauguration:
1) A personality cult that is (at the very least) unbecoming for any democratic people whose government is constitutionally limited and founded on the principles of individual freedom.
2) The color of the person's skin.
I keep seeing news reports about this "historic" inauguration, and the only thing that's unique about it is that -- as Barack Obama himself said, during the campaign -- he doesn't look like previous presidents.
If you have a plausible alternative for all the excitement, by all means, let's hear it.
If you have a plausible alternative for all the excitement, by all means, let's hear it.
People are rejoicing in the election of Obama for a great variety of reasons, depending upon the person. They include, but are not limited to:
1. He is NOT Bush. He is the Anti-Bush, in many ways. He represents a change from the Bush policy and mindset.
a. He has stated that the Iraq Invasion was wrong and plans to end it. Bush has not acknowledged this and has behaved with arrogance and idiocy in dealing with the real problem of terrorism.
b. He is opposed to the sort of torture techniques that Bush has embraced. These are anti-American and the world cringed to see the leader of the free world engage in it. Obama represents a huge change on this front, a change for the better.
c. He has stated that he is closing Guantanamo. Period. It was a wrong and un-American approach to dealing with terrorism. Bush has not recognized this. Obama has. This is a HUGE change and people around the world rejoice.
d. Bush policies made a mockery of science and personal/societal responsibility. The Bush White House has been reluctant to recognize legitimate scientific study if it interfered with Big Business. That is disgusting for many, many people.
e. In short, so much of what Bush policy represented was so opposed to the very ideals that make our nation great, that our nation has suffered and folk around the world despaired that we had abandoned that which had made us great, seems to me.
2. Beyond the many, many reasons to rejoice because Obama isn't Bush, Obama himself is inspiring. He is a leader, a great thinker, an intelligent and well-reasoned politician.
Now, in saying that, don't hear me saying he's perfect or a Messiah. That's just garbage thinking from garbage brains. No one has said that and it's just tiring to even address such ignorance. It is okay to admire an imperfect man who generates excitement and respect because of his words, policies and actions. Conservatives have often despaired that we're lacking real leadership, real statesmen. Well, Obama is just such a man.
3. We're excited that he represents a change in approach in how we deal with terrorism. No more invading countries unprovoked. Rather, we will pursue criminals who engage in terrorism instead of punishing nations and innocent people who live in the supposed vicinity of terrorists. This makes sense and the world rejoices in a smart approach to dealing with the real problems of terrorism.
4. He is encouraging more responsible capitalism. "We have to continue to depend upon consuming foreign oil at unsustainable rates because we depend upon consuming oil at unsustainable rates" is the mindset of an addict. No. We need to consume less and I think Obama's policies indicate that he realizes this (it remains to be seen, of course).
5. BUT, Obama also realizes that letting go of last century's solution (fossil fuels) does not need to mean that the economy suffers. There's a whole world of possibilities in generating jobs and resources in living more sustainably. Pitting the economy against the environment is a fool's approach to dealing with the economy. Obama represents a change away from that approach.
6. And then, there IS the whole first African American thing. That IS a significant milestone in US history and it is rightly celebrated. Not celebrating Obama merely because he is black, but celebrating the best presidential candidate to come along in a generation or two (or ten??) who also happens to have a black father, who represents millions of people around the world in ways that a silver-spooned Bush or Kerry could ever represent... this IS significant.
Whatever any naysayers may think, it is a huge thing and to be celebrated. If you wish to be among the outsiders on this front, shame on you.
For starters. How long would you like me to go on as to why it is appropriate to celebrate the going away of Bush and the inauguration of Obama?
It may be rare, but it's not non-existent. If you're not being willfully dishonest, you're at least being negligent when it comes to researching whether the claims you make are rooted in reality.
And if you don't think Obama is literally perfect, that hardly excuses the degree to which you have immersed yourself in the cult of personality surrounding the man.
Obama is "the best presidential candidate to come along in a generation or two (or ten??)"?
That's nonsense. To cite just one counter-example, a man who really was "a leader, a great thinker, an intelligent and well-reasoned politician," would NEVER have been a member of church led by a race-baiting, hate-mongering conspiracy theorist, only to throw that church and his close mentor of a pastor under the bus the moment the association became too politically inconvenient to do otherwise.
A great thinker wouldn't have put up with routine hate speech that veers so far into lunacy as to claim that our government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide. A principled man would have never joined that church because it's make a mockery of Christ's bride and God's house, and even a craven but intelligent politician would have avoided Jeremiah Wright as the poisonous gasbag that he is.
But I am glad to see that you admit that race has something to do with the celebrations of Obama's inauguration.
I do wonder:
If one of the reasons people are celebrating Obama's inauguration is because of the color of his skin -- if they are throwing parties and traveling hundreds or thousands of miles to stand in the cold to see the event in person because he's black -- is it still wrong to speculate that people voted for him in part because of his race?
You got very, very testy when Eric and I suggested that people were voting for Obama because he's black. Can we expect an apology now that you recognize "the whole first African American thing"?
He has stated that he is closing Guantanamo. Period. It was a wrong and un-American approach to dealing with terrorism. Bush has not recognized this. Obama has. This is a HUGE change and people around the world rejoice.
The Washing Post reports today that Obama "said he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office." [emphasis mine]
Sure, Obama said he's closing Gitmo. Period.
But the reality is, he's closing Gitmo. Eventually. Maybe.
Dan has not yet admitted that ignorance about Obama is a factor in this exuberance, but that's perhaps because his own views of the horrors of Bush (science mockery? really?) and the hope of Obama aren't firmly rooted in fact, either.
Since you brought it here I'll answer here too. Since the Dandard for commenting on wasting of money is apparently "If you have taken a vow and are living a life of poverty and are condemning excessive spending, you may have a point. Otherwise, it would seem you risk sounding hypocritical." I will expect Dan to promptly stop complaining about the money the Bush administration has spent on anything until he can provide proof that he has taken such a vow.
Dan, it matters little what I say. I can tell you that I have made significant sacrifices financially and otherwise to support people and causes that I feel strongly about. Further, about 2 years ago I made am intentional decision to seek employment in the nonprofit world rather than continue 25years of self employment. this entailed a significant financial and lifestyle sacrifice on my part. So, unless the only way I can pass your litmus test is to live in a cardboard box, give it a rest. I know I challenge your prejudice, but try to open your mind.
Dan, for someone who knows so little about what BHO stands for on a policy level claims like "the best presidential candidate to come along in a generation or two (or ten??)", seem strange. If we are to take the commonly accepted definition of a generation as 22 years, we see that you are asserting that BHO a better presidential candidate than every candidate since John Adams.
"And then, there IS the whole first African American thing. That IS a significant milestone in US history and it is rightly celebrated."
Yes, it is a milestone and can/should be celebrated but consider the following.
1. If we were inaugurating J.C. Watts, Ron Freeman, or Condaleeza Rice, I doubt you would be quite so excited to celebrate the first black president.
2. You realize that you are now advocating this level of celebration primarily based on the color of a man's skin. Seems shallow to me.
Seriously, people, this is absurd. If all you can do is find fault with the cost of the inauguration, I think that's a sign that Obama is doing a lot of things right.
All that said, I thought King's dream was for a color-blind society, where a man is judged, not for the color of his skin, but for the content of his character. I am very skeptical that, if a white candidate had a resume as thin as Obama's and as deep, long-standing ties to a race-baiting hate-monger of a pastor, he would have done nearly as well politically. At the very broadest level, the election of a black man to the highest office appears to be a sign that we're closer to achieving racial equality, but the motivation for far too many to support Obama -- i.e., consideration for the fact that he's black -- is not an encouraging sign for those who actually care about the goal of color-blindness.
I'm not convinced that you're completely ignorant of the messianic enthusiasm of some of Obama's supporters, enthusiasm which wasn't exactly repudiated by his campaign. If you really don't know that Michelle talked about the need to "fix our souls," I encourage you to become more knowledgeable about those subjects you pretend to understand.
I'm frankly not inclined to help enlighten those who don't seem willing to help themselves. And, anyway, if you truly believe that Social Security "ain't broke" when there is NO Social Security trust fund and when the system is rapidly heading to an inevitable bankruptcy without reform, I'm not sure any amount of help would do you any good.
On the subject of willful ignorance, I have two more things to say to you, about this comment:
If all you can do is find fault with the cost of the inauguration, I think that's a sign that Obama is doing a lot of things right.
One, I reiterate that this discussion about the inauguration's cost is not primarily a criticism of Obama, his campaign, or his upcoming administration. It's about the hypocrisy of the media and others, when it's clear that their earlier whining about Bush's second inauguration wasn't principled: it was purely political.
Two, it's quite obvious that this isn't "all" that we have to complain about. This isn't even in the top ten of serious complaints about the current state of politics, and I think you very well know that.
To write the above as if it's even possible that you think that this issue is all we have to bring up, is to demonstrate your willingness to write what you know to be false -- your willingness to ignore the larger context when it's convenient to do so, to make some rhetorical point that you think is half-clever, even though doing so undermines the trust that is necessary for any productive good-faith discussion of any issue.
President George Bush has made federal emergency aid available to the District of Columbia to help defray costs of next week's U.S. presidential inauguration.
The funding was made available by Bush declaring an emergency existed in the District, White House press secretary Dana Perino said...
Under the emergency declaration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will reimburse District officials for eligible emergency protective measures during Tuesday's inauguration after they have spent the $15 million already appropriated for events Saturday through Wednesday, a White House statement said.
This is further evidence, at the end of his term, that George W. Bush is no fiscal conservative, but can you just imagine the reaction if FEMA funds were being used, not just for a Bush inauguration, but for the inauguration of any Republican president, historic or otherwise?
In a brilliant column, Mark Steyn notes that "a presidential inauguration is not (to be boringly technical about it) an 'emergency.' It's penciled in well in advance – in this case, so well in advance that for years Democrats have been driving around with '1-20-09' bumper stickers on the back of their Priuses."
He writes about the "mission creep" of government agencies in general: while FEMA was originally intended for managing nuclear attacks, it's now handling an inauguration. And, he writes about the fact that the government routinely encourages bad behavior: local governments in New England now budget less for dealing with the very predictable inconvenience of winter snowfall, because they know that FEMA will cover the difference.
It's a strong dose of common sense when politics most desperately needs it.
Bubba rightly points out a few other instances where Barely has shown little change.
As far as criticizing is policies, the right has been critical of his proposals during his campaign, and the different proposals of which he now speaks. When he is finally sworn in, and decides just which is the real Barry, we'll likely find fault because it's becoming routine. I truly hope he's wrong.
One more thing: there has never been any Bush-worshipping from the right. What there has been is constant clarification of stupid misrepresentations by his opponents, so many of which it is understandable that to defend the man might seem like worship.
You're right. There was worse: "GOP -- God's Own Party." I've it on stickers and T-shirts in the wild.
On Obama: I like him. But I actually, truly would have voted for a yellow dog over any Republican.
There you go, voting on color again.
The problem with your last comment is that when I raised a number of concerns elsewhere the response was zip, zero, nada. So if you want to defend the stimulus package, and the cabinet appointments feel free. I'd love to here it.
Or we could discuss vote fraud in MN. I seem to remember that the dems were worried about vote fraud back in Oct, not so much in Dec.