Sure it’s a big deal, he is the first, higher security costs blah, blah blah but this seems like a waste of money, why not a nice pot luck for the ‘green’ party?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost
Andrew
Hey, It’s a barbecue on Pennsylvania Avenue!!!
At the time of Bush’s inauguration the left was going abolsutely apeshit over the cost and security measures–but now…uhhh…not so much.
At the time of Bush’s inauguration the left was going abolsutely apeshit over the cost and security measures–but now…uhhh…not so much.
Really? Says who.
Why so much for the election, why so much for so many things?
When you don’t have to make the money yourself it’s REALLY easy to spend. Government is all about spending other peoples money. I’M certain I could find a judge that would swear him in for free and we could put 150 million toward that 750 BILLION dollar bailout we some how have to pay for…seriously this all sickens me. .50$ for every man women and child in the country just so the guy can do his job?
~Matt
We are paying to have a basketball court built for him in the white house also!!
Hey! He’s stimulating the economy! Back off! 
At the time of Bush’s inauguration the left was going abolsutely apeshit over the cost and security measures–but now…uhhh…not so much.
Really? Says who.
How about Eric Boelhert. What’s absolutely great and ironic about this piece is that all you have to do is replace Bush with Obama to see the real picutre today. But a pundit like Boelhert–and many others bitching about Bush’s $50M party at the time–won’t say jack shit about Obama now, you won’t see a hit pieice like this anywhere anytime soon by the left…cricket, cricket…cricket
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration Giving Bush a pass – again
The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration’s huge cost and its unprecedented security.
By Eric Boehlert
Jan 20, 2005 | In Sunday’s New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations “become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor.”
Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function – posing uncomfortable questions to those in power – with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today’s mainstream media.
This week’s inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.
Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans – 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans – would have preferred a “smaller, more subdued” inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush’s overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on – a phenomenon the press ignored.
For the media, simply reporting on the cost of the inauguration proved to be a challenge. Most major outlets stuck to the lower, albeit still unprecedented, figure of $40 million, which the Presidential Inaugural Committee said it hopes to raise from private donors. But a more accurate figure may be $50 million. That’s the amount cited by the Washington Times (which is plugged in to GOP circles). But even that number doesn’t take into account the nearly $20 million that’s being spent for security, putting the real cost at closer to $70 million, instead of the media’s preferred $40 million.
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. (Costs are running roughly $110,000 per minute there.) Also interesting but unnoted is that between the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, Bush and his supporters have spent roughly $115 million total on parties and parades.
The same brand of tentative reporting occurred with regard to the massive, unprecedented and still unexplained security blanket that has turned the nation’s capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, bombers flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut. This despite last week’s assessment compiled by the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Justice, which declared, “There is no credible information indicating that domestic or international terrorist groups are targeting the inauguration.”
Nonetheless, like butter on a humid summer day in Washington, reporters have simply melted away from asking pointed questions about the costly security overkill (nearly 9,000 police officers and military personnel will be deployed) – a buildup that clearly plays to Bush’s political advantage by keeping terrorist threats at the top of people’s minds.
When not deferring to Bush administration officials on the unprecedented security, news teams from outlets such as Time magazine, ABC News and Fox News have been busy hyping terror threats – leaked by Bush administration officials – about explosive-filled limousines that could literally crash the inauguration. “Imagine a terrorist plot to gut this entire vehicle except for the front seats, filling the rest with high-grade explosives, enough to bring down a building,” intoned ABC’s Chris Cuomo (emphasis added). The terror “reminder” sent to intelligence officials this week was based on al-Qaida documents seized last year that made no reference to the inauguration.
The press’s timidity toward the White House has been on constant display since the election. In selecting Bush late last month as its Person of the Year, Time, which devoted eight stories and 17,000 words to toasting Bush in that issue, seemed in awe that a Republican wartime president, who once boasted approval ratings in the 70s, was able to defeat a liberal from Massachusetts in the election. And contrary to dispatches from the campaign trail about how Bush had repeated the same vague stump speech over and over again throughout the fall, Time insisted, “Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity” (emphasis added).
Playing catch-up, Newsweek’s Inauguration Eve cover story this week was equally fawning, insisting that contrary to what readers may have read or suspected, Bush is “hands-on, detail-oriented and hates ‘yes’ men.” He’s a commander in chief who “masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes” and who “digs deep into his briefing books.” According to whom? Bush’s closest “aides” and “friends,” of course.
Newsweek also reported that Bush’s natural self-confidence was boosted by his “clear election victory” in November. But as Salon previously noted, in the past 80 years, only three times have presidents been elected with fewer than 300 electoral votes. Bush accounts for two of the three anomalies; in 2000 he won 271 electoral votes, and in 2004 he captured 286. (Jimmy Carter is the third example, with 297.) By way of comparison, Bush’s final margin of victory was almost identical to Carter’s win over Gerald Ford in 1976, when there was very little discussion of a mandate for the Democrat. Yet to Newsweek’s eyes, Bush enjoyed a “clear victory.”
Meanwhile, U.S. News and World Report’s cover theme this week – again courtesy of Bush aides – is the president as a big thinker. The Los Angeles Times echoed that premise with the first sentence of a Monday news article, declaring, “As he prepares to launch his second term, President Bush is aiming for nothing less than a legacy that would rank him among America’s great presidents.”
Press coverage doesn’t get much friendlier than that. Perhaps the White House should consider it an inauguration gift.
…cricket, cricket…cricket LOL! so true.
…cricket, cricket…cricket LOL! so true.
What is even more amazing is this line in that piece:
“There is no credible information indicating that domestic or international terrorist groups are targeting the inauguration.”
Our own FBI and intelligence services just came out with that same, almost identical line in the last few day regarding Obama’s inauguration, except it was more tied to extremist white supremecy groups. So the writer uses this as a prop to strengthen his argument, while today if you were to ask him about the security costs of Obama’s inauguration he would likely punt on that, despite the G-men issuing the exact same statement!!! We do know that he has not written any columns calling for outrage on the part of the public over this off the charts inaugural bash price tag, despite us being in the worst economy in our lifetime.
Either way, this just shows the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to this kind of stuff.
For the reccord, I think the waste on the part of both politicians is mind numbing.
Maybe I’m confused about who represents the left. If I recall correctly, the media represents the left, yet the article says that Time and Newsweek and others were fawning over Bush. Not really apeshit.
Otherwise, you’ve got one writer, Eric Boelhert, that you somehow proclaim to be the left. If you want to whine about Boelhert, that would be fine. But saying “the left” went apeshit is a bit of a stretch.
Oh wait, this is the lavendar room where 4 paragraph blogs by partisans are taken as gospel while peer-reviewed journal articles are sneered at.
FM, do a google search, Bush was getting hit by the media for having such a lavish party during a time of war and also because of the sunami. You’re reading too far into this. The point is you can’t find any criticism of Obama’s $150M by any of the organizations that criticised Bush. Here is another example:
1. **ABC and AP Focus on Those Upset by Bush’s “Lavish” Inauguration **
ABC focused on how “some,” and AP on how “many,” are upset by a “lavish” inaugural in the midst of a war. ABC anchor Terry Moran teased at the top of Sunday’s World News Tonight: “In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?” Geoff Morrell proceeded to relay the complaints of one anti-war activist and a rich sports owner who had voted for Bush. Without mentioning how FDR was near-death at the time, Morrell contrasted Bush with how “during World War II Franklin Roosevelt opted not to have a parade or a party – just a White House swearing in followed by a small luncheon of chicken salad and pound cake.” The AP headlined a Thursday night AP dispatch: “Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration.” The AP’s Will Lester led with how the $40 million for the inaugural could buy “200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq” or “vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.”
Again, this is not complicated.
At the time of Bush’s inauguration the left was going abolsutely apeshit over the cost and security measures
But, but Bush
.
At the time of Bush’s inauguration the left was going abolsutely apeshit over the cost and security measures
But, but Bush
And your contribution to this thread is what exactly?
Well you’re right. That certainly describes apeshit to me!
The people who are in the real know about security threats don’t talk to the press about them. But a journalist imbedded with the Obama campaign has later said that the Secret Service seemed to indicate that there were more threats against Obama than what you’d normally get against a presidential candidate at the general election stage.
**And your contribution to this thread is what exactly? **
My contribution is to point out your whining.
You’re welcome.
My contribution is to point out your whining.
You’re welcome.
Looks like signature line material to me.
**And your contribution to this thread is what exactly? **
My contribution is to point out your whining.
You’re welcome.
Duly noted and I will make sure to keep you in good company along with the other low-rate LR posters, such as, Yahey and old-as-dirt.
No need to thank me either, the pleasure is all mine.