Which was based on actual MSM reporting!

The Deciders!!!!!!!!!!!!

You raise this point in a post titled ‘The $160M Inauguration.’

Only after the scrutiny over a $150,000 wardrobe, which was just a diversionary tactic. Some pols just don’t have the clothing budget of say, a Pelosi or Feinstein..

You raise this point in a post titled ‘The $160M Inauguration.’ Good show.

I don’t know if we’ve got apples to apples, but the totals are sure in the ballpark for comparison purposes

As stated, neither do I. I think we’re closer than the current reporting is, and certainly better than a number plucked out of thin air. I think the Times made the right editorial decision in not attempting a 2009 estimate based on the information available.

“What I have done is point out some extremely poor reporting which DRJ used as a source.”
Exactly, and you provided her better numbers to use so the comparison would not be misleading, as I indicated.

“I also made an extremely qualified extrapolation based on those figures”
I don’t know if we’ve got apples to apples, but the totals are sure in the ballpark for comparison purposes.

Like I said, I think I understand your position.

Let me see if I understand this. You have pointed out where you believe DRJ’s numbers make a comparison misleading.

You don’t, but thanks for playing.

What I have done is point out some extremely poor reporting which DRJ used as a source. I have pointed out why the number used by that source is unreliable (hint: it has no basis for existence) and I then supplied actual figures from actual sources so maybe we can attempt to make comparisons and provided appropriate links. I also made an extremely qualified extrapolation based on those figures, but I’m not sure I’m ready to “go with them” just yet. But I do prefer the numbers that actually exist over the ones that don’t.

Someone else had already pointed out why DRJ’s source’s fictious number was misleading.

Oh, sheesh.

And until not that long ago I actually accepted the notion that the one president who’s served the longest time in office, Franklin D. Roosevelt — and a beloved figure of the Democrat Party (if not a good portion of old-time America in general) — at least could claim his success with the voters (er, maybe that should be the “suckers”) of America was justified by his ability to upend a significant chunk of the Great Depression. Then I read assessments from, as one example, two researchers from UCLA who reveal just the opposite. And now even the one major liberal/Democrat icon of the White House who I’ve been willing to give some slack or kudos to (above and beyond his worthy handling of WWII), turns out to have been full of Jimmy-Carter-esque baloney.

BTW, another icon of the left (or for those who equate great leadership with economic good times), Bill Clinton, lucked out to have been in office during the height of the real “decade of greed,” when the Internet boom, and the ensuing stockmarket frenzy, was going wild and crazy for everyone.

Stats don’t lie but liars use stats.