The $160M Inauguration
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Obama Inauguration will cost at least $160 million, almost four times what George W. Bush’s 2004 Inauguration cost. According to a Congressional committee spokeswoman, anything less is unacceptable:
“Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, told the New York Daily News, which estimated the cost at $160m: “We’re always very budget conscious. But we’re sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don’t want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is.”
Florman deals specifically with the inauguration ceremony at the Congress, which is relatively modest. The surge in spending is partly because of the Obama’s [sic] decision to open the entire Mall to the public.”
Schlock is defined as cheap or trashy. If spending less than $160M to inaugurate Obama is cheap, God help us in the next four years.
— DRJ
EDIT: Note that the $160M cost of Obama’s inauguration includes security costs that are not included in Bush’s $42M inaugural but, as the link points out, Obama’s security costs are much greater than Bush’s “because of the Obama’s [sic] decision to open the entire Mall to the public.”
Chris Matthews must be outraged that only $160 million is being spent on Obama’s coronation.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:39 pmKeep that number — “almost four times” (more) — in mind during Bambi’s time in office.
4X higher deficit; 4X higher taxes; 4X more corruption; 4X more pardons for felons; 4X more people recieving welfare . . .
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/17/2009 @ 1:25 amGood benchmark IT, 4X the inflation, 4X unemployment rate, 4X the misery index…
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/17/2009 @ 1:52 amAccording to the LA Times back in 2005 (Jan. 16 or so), 250,000 people were projected to attend the Bush 2005 inauguration. Projections for this inauguration run up to eight (8) times that number: 1.5 to 2 million people.
Funny that – many, many more people want to go see Obama inaugurated than they did Bush. Ever wonder why that is?
Transportations costs are correspondingly higher.
sandra (96e97b) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:19 amForget the number of people in DC. What would be interesting to know, and I’m too damn lazy to research, is what is the combined cost of all the actual Inaguration Balls for Bush’s 2 times versus BOH’s first.
And I’ll bet that BHO’s costs on the fancy parties far outweighs what was spent on Bush’s.
But then again the glitterati must party in the manner they are accostomed to. Why should they sacrifice when so many people are out of work and the economy is circling the drain?
Dr. K (4dd7c3) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:57 amHasn’t President Bush already declared a state of emergency in D.C.? Will there be tanks at the Mall and Obama and Congress on their way to Gitmo?
nk (9097f8) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:17 amFancy that, I guess now we have to add Andrew Jackson to the list of Presidential analogies that folks will apply to O!…
Opening the mall to all his peeps so they can party-arty-arty like it’s 2009, on our collective nickel of course, sounds a lot like the political whiskey parties of the 19th century to me. You know, the ones where the folks kinda trashed the White House in the process of partying…
This is such a harbinger of things to come on so many levels. First, as is mentioned in the comments, he’s catering to the glitterati; in the manner they’re accustomed to of course. And, he’s using public money to provide a party for folks that couldn’t otherwise afford it. You know, instead of letting them stay home and watch it on TV, eating their own snacks, all pf which were underwritten, at least in part, by public funds anyway. Really it’s no surprise that these bread and circuses cost so much; it’s expensive to keep the plebs distractingly amused. In that respect it is hauntingly reminiscent of the Roman Empire as it began it’s decline. Spemding an ever increasing amount of wealth on bread and circuses in order to keep the plebs from realizing just how incompetent their leaders were and rebelling; this is the same, but here O! wants to keep the plebs from realize just how many campaign promises he’s already broken…
This whole episode simply underscores how far out of touch this man of the people, Barack Roosevelt Kennedy Jackson Obama, really is. At a time when fiscal austerity is needed, they are spending over the top amounts insted; why not it isn’t their money, it’s all of ours. Why didn’t Warrren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the rest of the Hollywood Glitterati get together and underwrite this cabaret..?
More spending, and less hand wringing concrn and insinuation of malfeasance by the MSM. It’s just another chapter in the story of O!…
Bob (99fc1b) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:40 amWhile i appreciate that this is a historic moment in US history, this expenditure is insensitive to the many people that have recently lost their jobs and homes – and also the people who had no jobs and homes that voted him to office. I also think that the restricted access to the all star music concert due to network tv rights, will block access to many of the Obama supporters. Essentially, not a good start…the last thing that the US needs is a celebrity President with start in his eyes at this time – but i wish him luck to focus on the massive job in hand.
david (8dee87) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:00 amAnybody is better than Bush to hold this office.
Everybody sing…… YES WE CAN !!! …super-cali-fragilistic-itsbe-ali-dosious…the e-con-o-my is getting much too atrocous…we elect a black man because the white man is too dumb….Super-cali-fragilicous-itsbe-ali-docious….dumb diddle diddle dumb diddle dah…
Bobo (ddbbd2) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:45 amOur esteemed guest hostess wrote:
Sometimes I think that the Lord abandoned us on November 4th, but I think we’ll survive!
Of course, we’re going to have to survive trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, but what’s a measly trillion dollars? Considering the record of fiscal responsibility President Bush and the Congress demonstrated between 2001 and 2007, it’s not like we Republicans have much of a claim to being budget-conscious.
My initial conclusion is that Barack Hussein Obama is going to try to inflate our way out of the debt. But doing that has its own hazard: as long as we have to keep borrowing money, inflation means ever-rising interest rates, meaning that the debt increases anyway. I just can’t see how it can be done.
The Dana who doesn't like bounced checks (556f76) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:45 am“It is all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
“Look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
Barack Hussein Obama, January 20, 2009
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:16 amAll I know as a business owner Dana, is that the more taxes I pay the harder I am going to kick in the teeth of my workers, errrr, Obama supporters.
Money goes uphill and shit goes down.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:19 amI think “the story of O” musical is in the works for either London or New York.
They have this scene with water and he walks across it ….
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:21 am$160M ain’t shat for world most fabolos rapper, President.
Da money an hos gonna be rolling Tuesday night. Flickin’ benjamins at da bitches.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:23 amDa’Shiznit, you realize of course that We Must Denounce You.
The politically correct Dana (556f76) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:34 amI recall a good deal of commentary in ’04 to the effect that Bush’s inaugural was over-the-top & expensive, and that with the same money you could feed the homeless, house the hungry, whatever.
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:41 amEver wonder why that is?
Gee, I’ll take a wild stab at it – millions of fellow cultists on their pilgrimmage to see the annointed one; the fact that he’s the first Black SCOTUS, and the fact that a 1st term always gets a much bigger turnout than a second inagural.
Does that about wrap it up for you, moonbeam?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:12 amThe New York Times, 1/23/04:
I wonder if Weiner (if that really is his name) has to say now.
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:13 amAccording to the LA Times back in 2005
Have you actually read anything on this blog other that this post, sweetie? The LAT has been defrocked, deflowered and completely humiliated by our esteemed host’s dogged Fisking. Quoting that rag to make your point is a very thin gruel. Try again.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:14 amAhhh F**k,
pitchforksntorches (4dd8c4) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:14 amI told you so!
yeeeeeesh.
I supported him, but I agree that given the sorry state the economy is in, starting with a show of restraint and modesty for his inauguration would send a better signal than a national “sweet 16” type of splash.
I don’t think there is anyone in the country or abroad who is not aware of the huge symbolism of this election (and connection with Lincoln etc). But, do we really need to spend hundreds of millions to create another huge party, complete with a period train or whatever to show it?
Barack, show us what you can do to get us out of this economic mess. That you are a good speaker and a magnetic personality we know already.
Val (c4f18b) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:42 amForgot one . . . 4X the number of murders in D.C. during the inauguration, compared to W.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:42 am4X the number of murders in D.C. during the inauguration, compared to W.
But our new Attorney General will see to it that such statistics are rendered race neutral and politically correct. Therefore, Washington DC over the next several years (ugh) will be rated as the safest community in America. Either that, or something in the other extreme direction, in which a lot of chants will be emanating from the White House. Chants of “no justice, no peace” whenever too many suspects of a certain demographic are being arrested per month, per year.
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:50 amIn that respect it is hauntingly reminiscent of the Roman Empire as it began its decline. Comment by Bob — 1/17/2009 @ 4:40 am
There is something peculiar and disquieting (or disturbing) about this whole period, which began on — if not also a bit before — November 4, 2008. A moment of where there now is no turning back.
I can’t shake the sense that the USA, thanks to a majority of its electorate, has allowed itself to enter a realm of the bizarre and corrupt. A time when America’s innocence (if you can call it that) — or perhaps a better term would be America’s specialness (for example, the US being the world’s oldest democracy) — not only was shattered once and for all, but where that condition now will be pummelled, choked and demolished in the process.
A glimpse of the future that far too much of America may be trapped in?
Look south, to the debacle that is Mexico, or to Venezuela, or to a variation of the Third World (or quasi-Third-World) societies of the Middle East, South Africa, and the oddly amoral, unreliable nations of the PRC (China) and a good percentage of Western Europe (with its nonsensical, flaky World Court, etc).
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:56 am[…] Patterico: Obama’s inauguration set to be the most expensive in US history President Barack […]
Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » $160 million and counting (a98aa5) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:08 amHere’s fun: go to the watchdog group Public CItizen’s website (citizen.org) and search for “inaugural”. Many, many listing for Bush in 2004, none for Obama.
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:18 amWTF did you expect from the double standard dems in Washington and in the press. You see, Obama is different, he is special, he’s worth four times as much as Bush. They have NO SHAME! Welcome to the next 4 years.
You asked for it, you got it, Obamania. We’re SCREWED!
J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:26 amRush has dubbed this “the Immaculation.” He’s even covering it Tuesday with no commercial breaks. All I know is I’m opting out (in all ways).
Peg C. (48175e) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:27 amYou know, we live in a nation where the opinions of our leaders can be communicated openly; with the fervor and disrespect from Hell. In other societies (like the ones we are now BORROWING from) prison and torture can swiftly follow the public dishonor of its leaders for the citizens of such societies.
None of these critics have immediate answers or the power to truly effect lasting change; no real influence or ability to use their influence to improve a community, town, state or region of the US. Just scathing B.S. from the comforts of under your bed or your little cubicle in lower management, abused and underpaid at some failing corporation…Hey, Da Shiznit, how’s your gig? How’s your relationships? There are a few in our country that used hot air to communicate effectively to bring about constant, measurable change…they’re called the WEALTHY, INFLUENTIAL AND SUCCESSFUL…grow up.
asktj (f3818d) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:34 amWhat happened to global warming and carbon footprints? Are all these visitors going to miraculously step into the transporter, cry “Beam me up, Obamy”, and appear in Washington?
Sorry about the ‘schlock’ but speaking of which, it’s going to be frosty in DC on inauguration day. I wonder what the Goracle is going to be wearing? It better be a Tommy Bahama shirt…
vet66 (d8da01) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:36 amI have a small suggestion. Why not save money by having the government offices work on Monday and celebrate MLK on the 20th? Oh well, I guess it’s too late for that.
Besides, the less the government does, the better off we all are.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:36 amLes parties doivent passer à Versailles. Laissez-les manger du gâteau!
Joe (17aeff) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:40 amLooking at inflation data, we see a price inflation of 33.7% from the CPI of 142.4 in January of 1993 to 190.7 in January of 2005, an increase of 33.7%. In other words, adjusted for inflation, President Bush’s second inaugural ($42.3M) cost less than President Clinton’s first ($33M), a 28.2% increase in absolute terms.
Well, the same tables show a CPI of 210.3 for December of 2008; it’s too early to know about January of 2009, a 10.28% increase over January of 2005. To cost roughly the same as President Bush’s 2005 inaugural, we should see a budget of roughly $46.6 million; if the inaugural totals $160 million, it will be 3.43 times as the last one, adjusted for inflation.
So, I have to wonder: will the good, grey Times bemoan the expense of this inauguration?
I’m not holding my breath.
The Dana who looked up the numbers (556f76) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:43 am[…] will cost around $150,000,000 to $160,000,000, depending upon whose estimate you are using. From Sierra, a commenter on Patterico, we learn that The New York Times thought that George Bush’s 2005 […]
Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Couldn’t be hypocrisy, could it? (73d96f) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:44 amJoe wrote:
To quote my dear, departed mother: You do, and you’ll clean it up!
The French-illiterate Dana (556f76) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:49 amMike K: Don’t you know that we are celebrating MLK Day on the 20th as well?
Oh, wait. I shouldn’t have said that, should I? OK, very well, I denounce myself.
The politically incorrect Dana (556f76) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:51 amwill the good, grey Times bemoan the expense of this inauguration?
They perhaps will be too distracted by — and worried about — the ongoing toppling over of their industry to notice. Certainly if the “Times” you’re referring to is the one based in LA. Then again, the one located in NY isn’t exactly looking at a bed of roses in the upcoming years either—given the double whammy of the long-term impact of the Internet and a potentially persistent recession.
Of course, there’s also the effect of so many members of such organizations having their heads so far up their butt, as they go ga-ga over Obama, to ever be unhappy about anything associated with the upcoming White House.
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:56 amFunny: the 2005 NYT article I linked cited a Gallup poll questioning whether $40m was excessive in a time of war. The only sign of Gallup asking people about Obama’s inauguration centers around whether it’ll be the most significant inaugural in American history, or simply one of the most significant.
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:06 amMeh. All this fuss when all that really matters is, what will Mrs. Obama’s dress look like?
(…after the historical significance of the event, of course…) 🙂
Dana (137151) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:13 amThe New York Times, January 15, 2005:
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:18 amSlashdown and rescue, amazing stuff
Bush is a hero too.
Seriously.
Joe (17aeff) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:18 amRepublican’s are criticized for imposing an “Imperial Presidency” by the Democrats and their Fellow Travelers;
who, when attaining power, live the Imperial Lifestyle.
But, its’ only money – our money –
AD (108e20) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:30 amyou wouldn’t expect them to spend their money now, would you?
Get used to this sort of things, ladies and germs:
Fact is, those same anti-GWB editorials could have been used to scale down this inauguration.
Fiscal crisis, anyone?
We are acting like the definition of a potlatch. Except in this case, we are “burning” the money, rather than giving it away.
The fact is, BO could indeed have stated that, in light of all the crises in the world at present, a scaled back inauguration would be the right thing to do.
But it would not be enough about him, I guess. Maybe he does read his own PR blurbs too much.
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:41 amThis whole thing is actually upsetting but it is great ammo next time I meet a Libertard.
Too bad it cost us $110MM.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:57 am“I am your god. Confess me your sins and you will be forgiven. All hail me, Me, ME, MEEEEEEEEE!”
Barack Hussein Obama, January 20, 2008.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:58 amI can’t wait for the wave of angry white Libertards when Bracky starts giving crap away to blacks and throws these crackers under the bus.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:59 amThe Los Angeles Times, 1/21/05:
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:59 amWould be funny to see a crime spree in DC on Tuesday. Lots of dead white people with Barack “Hope and Change” buttons on their lapels and missing wallets.
I would ROTLFMAO.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:01 amThere will be no crime in the Age of Barack.
Fellowship and Equality shall prevail.
The Hopes and Dreams of a Generation instituted in the fields of Woodstock shall be attained.
All this I say to You,
Believe, and it shall be!
Oh, and by the way, concealed carry permits are not valid within the District;
AD (108e20) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:10 amso carry a Louisville Slugger!
Would be funny to see a crime spree in DC on Tuesday. Lots of dead white people with Barack “Hope and Change” buttons on their lapels and missing wallets.
I would ROTLFMAO.
Comment by Da’Shiznit — 1/17/2009 @ 10:01 am
I have no doubt that you would.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:12 amBut it would not be enough about him, I guess. Maybe he does read his own PR blurbs too much.
Comment by Eric Blair — 1/17/2009 @ 9:41 am
After the Greek columns and stadiums I’d have expected nothing less from our president-elect. For someone with so little experience he has a, how should I put it, more than moderately surprising surfeit of confidence.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:15 amHubris…it is a deadly affliction to the body politik.
AD (108e20) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:18 amI laughed my arse off as Jonestown. Why wouldn’t I at DC?
You can say lots about a man by the people that support him.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:25 amI think people who seek there own demise deserve to get it.
So when Liberals get mugged/et al I kind of shrug my shoulders and save my sympathy for the Police who need to get that scum off the street.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:28 amHubris…it is a deadly affliction to the body politik.
Comment by AD — 1/17/2009 @ 10:18 am
“And I will have it oooouuuut!!” 🙂 (a screaming Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons, the best movie EVAH) Seriously, Obama’s first few months in office will, I fervently hope, take some of that hubris away. If not, God help us since a president who thinks of himself as anything other than a servant will be a disastrous and dangerous “leader.”
Comment by Da’Shiznit — 1/17/2009 @ 10:25 am
“Nothing shows a man’s character more than what he laughs at.” –Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:32 amComment by no one you know — 1/17/2009 @ 10:32 am
Yes, I laugh at idiots no matter the consequences of their stupidity.
Darwin lives.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:36 am…. and guilty, white, upper-middle class liberals deserve all the misery the black lobby will deliver in the coming years.
I don’t. They do.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:38 amWhat a truly sad day this is for our country. Obama has done nothing, NOTHING! All these fool followers of his make me sick, especially the media. He is so full of himself, I can’t believe anyone voted for this nobody, who will do nothing but ride the Clinton’s coat tails. What a joke this country has become.
Eileen (6552d2) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:50 amAn open letter from CBS’s Lloyd Garver to President Bush, 1/12/05:
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:59 amUSA Today, 1/14/05:
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 11:03 amBBC News, 1/20/05:
sierra (4be1ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 11:07 amBut I bet that current Obamafuehrer fellator-wannabes have no problemo with $160 mil for HIS coronation. IF the Homeland suffers some horrendous WMD attack during O!’s reign, who they gonna blame? The evil Bushitler naturally.
Any poll numbers for this soiree? Libtards are such self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou hypocrites.
I’m not in an area where I would be at all pleased to live under martial law. I still think Obamamessiah is an arrogant nicotine/corksucking pri*k.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/17/2009 @ 11:22 amThe hypocrisy of Democrats and liberal talking heads is getting so thick it could choke a polar bear.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2009 @ 11:23 amJust out of curiosity, how many typewriters in the White House will be missing the “O” key? How many desk and chairs will be sabotaged? How many office items will go missing? How many things will be stolen from Air Force One by Bush staff?
Steverino (69d941) — 1/17/2009 @ 11:43 amThe commenter formerly known as Another Drew wrote:
Alas! Would that your words were true! Unfortunately, ’tis only rarely the case. How many politicians have actually been immolated on the alter of their own hubris? How many have gone down to defeat due to their belief that they are somehow better than the rest of us?
A very solid majority of Americans just elected a man consumed with hubris. As you go further down the ladder of American politicians, how many do you find who lack this characteristic?
Politicians don’t seem to die from it, and voters don’t seem to punish it.
The saddened Dana (556f76) — 1/17/2009 @ 11:56 amWhat’s pathetic he is The One who told us that sacrifice was necessary, remember? “We can’t drive our SUVs…”
I don’t see any sacrifice here at all. The man was elected because he is an able exponent of rhetoric, nothing more.
Richard Romano (b96fd9) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:10 pmComment by The saddened Dana — 1/17/2009 @ 11:56 am I am quite quickly reminded of the condescension displayed by Albert Gore Jr during the debates and the backlash that ensued.
I am also reminded (local event) of a Mayor of San Diego who thought he could do no wrong, and lost his office for his lack of humility – a point I believe he now concedes from his current position in RW Talk-Radio.
Then there is “The Hammer” – Tom DeLay. If his sense of self-importance hadn’t let him run roughshod over others, he might not have generated the political enemies that he did.
As for the question at hand…
Our next President has only been on the political scene for what now, 12-14 years, only 4 years on the National scene?
So far, all he has done is to campaign; now he has to govern. This is where the “rubber meets the road”, and decisions have to be made – decisions that will upset someone no matter which direction they go.
We will find out if he is a “my way, or the high-way” type, or one who bends to the gentlest breeze, or if there is a “there, there”, and where it might be?
In any case, we can only hope that his “lack of necessities” does not cause incalculable pain to the country at large.
AD (108e20) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:17 pmWhen will the MSM ask: “Why does Obama hate the poor?”
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:22 pmIf he is the new Andrew Jackson, why doesn’t he open up the White House to the peeps? It worked out so well back then!
With the bars open till 4 a.m., I wonder when the youths start burning stuff?
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:22 pmComment by Patricia — 1/17/2009 @ 12:22 pm
The Muslims will start when they feel like it, probably around dusk.
AD (108e20) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:24 pmThe non-Muslims will wait until the bars close.
Just out of curiosity, how many typewriters in the White House will be missing the “O” key? How many desk and chairs will be sabotaged? How many office items will go missing? How many things will be stolen from Air Force One by Bush staff?
Comment by Steverino — 1/17/2009 @ 11:43 am
Am guessing several at least – by a few of Obama’s people who will claim President Bush’s people did it. Even eight years later, the extent of those tawdry, petty, childish, criminal acts leave one all but speechless. To have such a large group of people who have no concept of even small decencies – or the respect due to both the incoming administration and the people’s house – supposedly “serving” our country was and is appalling.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:26 pmDid anyone call the Clintons’ on their thefts from the white house on their final way out the door? Was anything returned? And yet Bill and Shrillary remain fondly in the memories of so many enabling morons who voted for Billy.
What I find disgusting is how Republican Senators are fine just giving a pass to Hillary as Sec. State and assorted other crooks like the IRS director designate. Throw all the bums out.
Let’s see how much the GOP kisses Obama’s scrawny ass as he seeks an “elegant” solution other than union check card to facilitate and force people to join unions.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:37 pmIt’s not a done deal yet.
There is still time for Bush to stage a coup and hold on to power.
Shoot, does anyone know where Cheney is right know or Bolton and his moustache?
I think there are plenty of liberals out there who are going to be biting their pillows and wetting their beds until Teleprompter Jesus actually takes the Oath of Office.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:43 pmAccording to a Congressional committee spokeswoman, anything less [than $160 million] is unacceptable.
She didn’t say that, DRJ.
The source for the quote was the NY Daily News:
It’s dishonest to make her appear to sanction/justify cost estimates for the two million who could show up in DC – when she was asked about tending to 240,000 invited guests.
steve (11c43a) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:44 pmWill we be required to knell as Obama receives his ointment and gilded crown from John Roberts?
Will the bells ring out?
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:54 pmThat you would wish for fellow citizens to die is as disturbing as it is pathetic.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:58 pmIgnore the troll. If it’s a parody, it’s a crappy one.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/17/2009 @ 12:59 pmRe: Tsunami victims. Is it too much to ask that we take care of things at home first?
OK! I denounce myself before anyone else can.
And I won’t be watching the CORONATION. There must be a few chores around the house much more inportant. Like wheeling the trash can out to the street.
PatAZ (d8da01) — 1/17/2009 @ 1:07 pmI hope Joe The Journalist (AKA Joe The Plumber) will be covering the BEATIFICATION for Pajamas Media. He and Rick Sanchez can slug it out in the Reflecting Pool. My money’s on Joe.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/17/2009 @ 1:39 pmSandra #4,
Okay. I’ll take the bait. Maybe because this is the first time we’ve had a paid coup, with rogue nations donating to sway the election ?
To answer your question, no. It’s no wonder. It was a global effort. (I hear a few dead people voted, too.)
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 1:42 pmIt seems surprising, but people seem to really like Obama.
imdw (688568) — 1/17/2009 @ 1:57 pm“It seems surprising, but people seem to really like Obama.”
Amazing when you think about it, considering he’s never done anything. Wait until he actually has to make some decisions instead of waffling or voting present. Just give him some time to settle in.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:02 pmIt seems surprising, but people seem to really like Obama.
Comment by imdw — 1/17/2009 @ 1:57 pm
Well, that’s a good thing, I guess, since we’ll be seeing quite a bit of him, and learning much more about him, over the next four years.
I wonder if people will like him more, or less, as we find out more about his “final decisions” on policies, how he thinks, and works, and makes decisions, and about his attitudes (which will become very clear regardless of what he says) about whether the American people, or political party, or himself, figure first in his decision making.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:07 pm“Wait until he actually has to make some decisions instead of waffling or voting present.”
He’s already decided to, say, support FISA reform and keep gates. Still, people like him. But hatahs gotta hate.
imdw (bab994) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:07 pmdaleyrocks beat me to it – and more succinctly.
I suspect someone with such a habit of voting “present” and who has so assiduously hidden his past records fears that people may not like what they will be finding out. Don’t know why this is so. But the man clearly thinks himself that he has a lot to hide.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:09 pmWhen are you going to do a post on the “Legacies of George Bush”? Or you could do something on “Our Favorite Bushisms.” I will start by dropping the first fav’ Bushism.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:16 pm• “I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”
— September 2000, explaining his energy policies at an event in Michigan
Now it’s your turn. 😉
Obama is riding the crest of 40 years’ worth of symbolic need. Yet still, getting just over 50% of the vote. Without the funny-money and Acorn votes he’d be hoofing it back to Springfield. (BTW, the Lincoln fixation is getting pretty comical. Major SNL material in there.. )
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:19 pmComment by love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 — 1/17/2009 @ 2:16 pm
I like,
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:19 pm“I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”
George W. Bush
I also like,
“I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.”
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:22 pm–President Bush, discussing them cell research on 8/9/01
Comment by no one you know — 1/17/2009 @ 2:19 pm
That would be when he also said this:
“They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too.” — Sept. 26, 2001, in Langley, Va. Bush was referring to the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:25 pmCome on. Have some fun. 🙂
Care for a more recent one? How about yesterday:
“The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.”
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:26 pm–1/16/09, announcing the proclamation of Sanctity of Life Sunday tomorrow
Just because a lot of somebodies used totally fictitious names and totally fictitious towns in the various states and totally fictitious businesses does not mean there was any corruption or lack of transparency in the donations he received. Just because he didn’t return those funds does not mean there was any corruption or lack of transparency on his or his campaign’s part.
When will you learn that all evidence supporting a thing and zero evidence negating a thing does not mean a thing is?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:27 pmComment by love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 — 1/17/2009 @ 2:25 pm
Will save you a little time, love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7. 🙂
I prefer a President who occasionally stumbles over a word, like anyone else, but means what he says and acts with self-effacing, selfless honor than one who speaks every syllable flawlessly but breaks promises, throws an astounding number of people under the bus, refuses to take stands and when the questions get tough, just wants to eat his waffle.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:33 pmIt seems surprising, but people seem to really like Obama.
Comment by imdw — 1/17/2009 @ 1:57 pm
It’s similar to the way that successful used-car salesmen (or wily trial lawyers, or Democrat-Party-lovin’ investors like Bernard Madoff) are able to schmooze with and change the minds of their victi…uh, customers or clients.
Folks in Banana Republics and the Third World (not to mention inner-city America and, for that matter, on the upper east side of Manhattan, etc) tend to be exceptionally susceptible to these type of people.
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:33 pmComment by no one you know — 1/17/2009 @ 2:26 pm
hmmmm. NOYK. You are trying a fast one on me, eh? Reminds me of this old Bushism:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” — Sept. 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tenn.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:39 pm“….I can’t get fooled again!”
BBC News, 1/20/05:
USA Today, 1/14/05:
The Los Angeles Times, 1/21/05:
Comment by sierra — 1/17/2009 @ 11:07 am
The mind of the limousine liberal — and in terms of their mentality if not their bank account, most people in the MSM fit that description to a “T” — is about as phony, two-faced and hypocritical as Obama giving a speech in Illionis last year on the horrors of global warming that he drove to in his SUV.
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:41 pmlove2008, I hope you are not borrowing Slate’s “Bushism of the Day” nonsense. Eugene Volokh spent a lot of time debunking their misrepresentations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:42 pmDear Emperor7—I really think you should have an embargo on Bushisms. After all, the press was after him in a partisan and vicious fashion—they wanted to make him look foolish. And it worked for many people in the public, which should worry you.
Two words for you: Joe Biden.
And I’m sure other people have reminded you that President-Elect Obama has said some pretty bizarre things from time to time…and my guess is that he will say more foolish things, with the stress of the job. And eventually, the press and his sycophants will start making fun of him, too.
So just remember that almost everyone says foolish things from time to time. Putting that person—when they say something like “all 57 states,” for example—under a microscope is probably not the best thing for the nation.
True, many pundits and the MSM have had a field day doing that in a partisan fashion. But pendulums swing both ways.
If it is funny to remember Bushisms, I hope you won’t mind when people make fun of Snobama.
I’m just sayin’.
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:45 pmComment by no one you know — 1/17/2009 @ 2:33 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:45 pmGoing philosophical on me eh? Well, I have only one thing to say to you,
“And they have no disregard for human life.” — July 15, 2008, at the White House. Bush was referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan. 🙂
Comment by love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 — 2:25 pm
I am soo glad you asked about this. You pose a very fair question. Read the link and its excerpts. From Powerline:
Looking forward to your response.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:47 pm[…] DRJ at Patterico) Posted by Darleen @ 4:43 pm | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “‘We can’t have […]
‘We can’t have a schlock affair’ [Darleen Click] (7a2640) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:48 pmComment by SPQR — 1/17/2009 @ 2:42 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:49 pmWhy do you always like to “debunk” everything, SPQR? Loosen up, Senator. 🙂
Okay to help you relax, meditate on this: •
“Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.” — Dec. 7, 2006, in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Also, Emperor7, have you always said precisely what you mean? And when you haven’t, would you enjoy people laughing at you and calling you foolish and stupid? I mean, people who don’t even know you, and don’t know the context of your statements?
Ah, but that is different when it is a politician you don’t like. But I seem to remember you defending misstatements by the President-Elect in the very recent past.
Or did you make fun of those, too, and suggest that Obama was stupid?
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:51 pmComment by Eric Blair — 1/17/2009 @ 2:45 pm
It’s okay Eric, I will be the first to use the new Obamaism to be released. But for now, let’s laugh it off. You guys are too stiff. Loosen up folks.
Okay, here is yours,
“Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” — Sept. 6, 2004, at a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:54 pmHappy now? 🙂
Comment by love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 — 1/17/2009 @ 2:45 pm
My dear love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7,
And that misspeak means…what, exactly? (We both know what he meant.) That President Bush is stupid? That he doesn’t know the meaning of words? That he has no brain? Go ahead, you can say it.
And while you think about your answer…Eric Blair has given some superb advice. I suggest you take it.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:55 pm^ Karma’s a bitch. Ride it slow.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:57 pmlove2008, so you are unaware of the scores of “Bushisms” that Eugene debunked?
That’s a shame that you missed his diligent work.
An example.
A list of Eugene’s posts on Bushism of the Day.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2009 @ 2:58 pmComment by Eric Blair — 1/17/2009 @ 2:51 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:01 pmYou are absolutely correct. No one is perfect. Look, even George Bush makes fun of himself. He doesn’t seem to take himself that seriosly. I think that’s one reason people like him. Obama is bound to make his own gaffes. And when he does, I will poke fun on it too. It’s just for comedy. Laughter is good medicine. Now, share with us your own fav’ Bushism. 😀
Comment by no one you know — 1/17/2009 @ 2:55 pm
That President Bush is stupid? That he doesn’t know the meaning of words? That he has no brain? Go ahead, you can say it.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:07 pmNo. Not so, NOYK. It means he has a great sense of humour. No stupid nor brainless person becomes President of the USA!
Personally, I’ll take some malaprops or spoonerisms any old day instead of the bilge (if not flat-out lies) coming out of the mouths of a few key members of the Obama Administration. An administration that seems truly fit for — truly deserving of — running a Banana Republic or a municipal government in, say, Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland or, come to think of it, Washington DC—the town where a majority of its voters continue to embrace former mayor and current councilman, cokehead, tax-evading Marion Barry.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” [Hillary] Clinton recounted. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” — Joe Biden, Sept 2008
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:08 pm[…] DRJ, Patterico’s Pontifications. […]
Snark of the Day: DRJ (Patterico’s Pontifications) | BitsBlog (33ff78) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:11 pmComment by Mark — 1/17/2009 @ 3:08 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:15 pmThat’s the spirit, Mark! Do you have more? 🙂
Favorite fuck up? When OBumbles was talking to Barbara Walters.
So like, whatever. You’d expect a Lincoln ‘fanatic’ to know which is which. But hey. Just film him from his good side for the next 4 years. He’ll do fine.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:18 pm“I wonder if people will like him more, or less, as we find out more about his “final decisions” on policies, how he thinks, and works, and makes decisions, and about his attitudes (which will become very clear regardless of what he says) about whether the American people, or political party, or himself, figure first in his decision making.”
That hotair link is interesting. If Obama has congress override the executive order, then the change becomes more permanent, because the next president won’t be able to override congress. But if obama stuck to his plan of issuing an order, then the next president would be able to override it. So he’s not stepping back — he’s actually taking a bigger step in favor of stem cell funding.
best part:
“Can Congress override an executive order? I don’t believe they can”
hotair ‘doesn’t believe they can.’ how cute.
imdw (e36369) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:23 pmComment by SPQR — 1/17/2009 @ 2:58 pm
Did Eugene also “debunk” the things Bush said on camera? Before millions of Americans? How do you debunk something everyone saw and heard and …..laughed at? The issue is not whether he made some misspeaks. The point is that we can all laugh at it. No one is perfect. Except of course, the Senator. (SPQR’S new name is “the Senator”.) defense spending bill.
Take this!
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — Aug. 5, 2004, at the signing ceremony for a defense spending bill.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:24 pmDebunk that.
Nope, given that of the 1100 parking spots Metro reserved for tour bus operators to ferry people to the O!ne’s Coronation, only 35 have been spoken for.
Like O!bama hisself, no cattle, & no hat, but a whole lotta sh*t in between.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:25 pmBut hey. Just film him from his good side for the next 4 years. He’ll do fine.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 1/17/2009 @ 3:18 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:31 pmI am really laughing at that comment. Doesn’t always happen. We all have our ugly sides. So the trick is to keep posing on our handsome/beautiful side. Obama has a lot of “good sides”. So yes, he will “do fine”.
“Nope, given that of the 1100 parking spots Metro reserved for tour bus operators to ferry people to the O!ne’s Coronation, only 35 have been spoken for.”
Those are the ones reserved outside of town. In town DC expects 10,000 buses.
imdw (2e179f) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:32 pmThey never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
What’s pathetic and worrisome is that if a comment like that emanates from Obama’s mouth, it won’t be a variation of a malaprop or a mondegreen. Obama may mean it literally.
After all, our future president listened to the anti-US rantings of Jeremiah Wright (if not others) for years and years, and not only were they not repudiated by Obama, he made the source of them his trusted advisor. Until, of course, controversy forced a last-minute change in plans.
Mark (411533) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:40 pm^ Did you read the Bush Legacies you requested ?
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:41 pmComment by Vermont Neighbor — 1/17/2009 @ 3:41 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:46 pmOn this blog? Where?
You can’t miss it. It’s right next to the box that says Palin/Jindal 2012. Just check it. Do what you’re told, like you always do.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:50 pmNo, dipsqueak. (I did drop a zero above…) of the 11 thousand bus spots reserved for tour operators, only THIRTY-FIVE have been spoken for.
In the ENTIRE DC Metro area.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:56 pmComment by Vermont Neighbor — 1/17/2009 @ 3:50 pm
heh. Nice.
Dana (137151) — 1/17/2009 @ 3:59 pmComment by love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 — 1/17/2009 @ 3:07 pm
No stupid nor brainless person becomes President of the USA!
God forbid, but one will if Obama should die in office.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:01 pmComment by Vermont Neighbor — 1/17/2009 @ 3:50 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:08 pmAre you really from Vermont? How come that is the only state George Bush refused to visit throughout his presidency? Never mind… You resemble the answer.
Love2009 / Tyranny2009:
What’s to debunk? The terrorists do keep thinking about how to destroy our country, and so too should we. Not because we want to destroy the country yourselves, of course, but to anticipate the next moves of those who do.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:08 pmThanks Dana.. does love know that what goes up must come down? This isn’t Homecoming King we ‘re talking about.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:11 pm“No, dipsqueak. (I did drop a zero above…) of the 11 thousand bus spots reserved for tour operators, only THIRTY-FIVE have been spoken for.”
‘dipsqueak’? You don’t have to be a jerk just because I add in more facts you don’t have.
Metro, a different entity than the DC government, offered up 1000 bus parking spots in out of town metro stations. Outside of DC. Inside DC, 10,000 spots are being made available for bus parking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/24/AR2008122402494.html
“The D.C. government recently conducted a telephone and Internet survey of charter bus companies east of the Mississippi River, which concluded that about half of their 23,000 vehicles are booked for the inauguration. Estimated number of passengers: 500,000. ”
Also, your number was off by 100. Metro reserved 1100 spots (not 11,000):
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Traffic/Detail?contentId=8203338&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=10.3.1
“But Metro officials say they have received parking requests from 35 charter buses, when they had initially set aside parking for 1,100 buses.”
imdw (e36369) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:14 pmThe dipsqueak isn’t gratuitous because you’ve amply shown yourself to be a jerk.
It’s also obvious you don’t live here in the area.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:18 pm“It’s also obvious you don’t live here in the area.”
How were the crowds at Ben’s Chili Bowl today?
imdw (87fe55) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:20 pmYes. But don’t ask for my birth certificate. They were outlawed a few months ago.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:20 pmSeems not everyone is welcome at the Obamabash that is costing the federal government more than Bush’s entire inauguration.
This should make an impression on all those people who think that Obama is going to lead the pillars of society:
http://dicst.com/2009/01/dc_tries_to_ban_prostitution_for_in.php
I guess with the incoming cabinet, they figure there will be enough hooks on Capital Hill.
retire05 (4aefd6) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:27 pmLovey @113 – Have you ever heard of wargaming moron? Debunk what?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:30 pmI did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewenski.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:41 pmOn a more philosophical note, I am beginning to understand the meaning of this recent Hudson Plane Splash, Miracle. It is a sign from God! That plane is symbolic of America as a nation. A nation in trouble. The passengers are the people and the Pilot, well, who do you think? Obama. Just like that experienced Pilot was able to maintain some level of calmness and leadership so as to know the best decision to make so as to save lives and the aircraft. It took a lot of self control and level-handedness to turn that plane towards the Hudson river and make a historic safe landing. Obama, like that Pilot will take this big aircraft called the American economy and by sheer intuition and leadership, land it on the safe river of prosperity. It is a sign, people. America will make it to safe havens under Obama. We will be just fine.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:41 pmI told you guys last year that Obama was going to win and he did. Now I tell you that in his time, this nation will witness another era of prosperity, favor and greatness. Not because Obama is special or because he has the best ideas; but because he is on time! Mark my words. The Emperor has spoken.
Still, caution:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50G07920090117
We all know how things are always…different…when the letter after the name is not “R.”
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:41 pmEmp, I will no longer be defending you, regardless of the type of attack against you.
So is it said.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:43 pmSo shall it be.
Comment by daleyrocks — 1/17/2009 @ 4:30 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:53 pmWhen I said “Debunk that”, I meant he should try to prove that Bush did not say those exact words. He was trying to say that all those Bushisms had been debunked. That they were not what he said. I find that hard to believe. Maybe you should read through the comments to know what led to the comment before jumping in unilaterally.
love2008, Eugene demonstrated quite clearly that the “Bushism of the Day” was often either taken out of context, was a mistranscription or other error. Slate could not be trusted.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:56 pmComment by John Hitchcock — 1/17/2009 @ 4:43 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 4:57 pmWhy? What did I do? Please don’t leave me in there eeeeeeevil hands. Plllleeeeeeeeeeze John. Come back! COME BACK!!!!11111
Oh, and by the way, love2008, since you feel the need to invent names for me, should I invent one for you? Probably based on your habit of misrepresentation and invention of strawmen? I did not say that all of the Bushism had been debunked. Do learn to read more accurately one of these days.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:00 pmComment by love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 — 1/17/2009 @ 4:41 pm
Now I think I’m beginning to get your sense of humor, love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7. That post is some priceless funny right there.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:10 pmLovey @140 – If nothing is perceived wrong with 113, why do you consider it a “Bushism.” Please inform you inferiors Emperor Moron.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:13 pmComment by SPQR — 1/17/2009 @ 5:00 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:13 pmI didn’t have to invent a name for you, SPQR, you did. SPQR is an initialism from a Latin phrase, Senatus Populusque Romanus (“The Senate and the People of Rome” or “The Senate and Roman People”). Which makes you a Senator of the Republic. The voice of reason. I meant it as a compliment actually. But never mind. If it offends you, I apologise.
I have been to 57 states on my campaign, so that leaves 1 more. I wanted to go to Alaska and Hawaii but my campaign staff won’t let me.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:17 pmComment by no one you know — 1/17/2009 @ 5:10 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:20 pmThanks NOYK. The first nice thing someone has said to me here today. (Yeah yeah I know, cry me a river. Right?) But seriously. I was almost going to lose my smile till I read that.
Oh, and to get back to the topic at hand, did I read where Bush’s 05 inauguration was privately funded to the tune of 46mil and B Hussein Obama’s inauguration is publicly funded to the tune of 160mil?
If I read that right, private funding trumps public funding every time, even if people choose to ignore the outrageous extravagance of 46mil compared to the reasonable expense of 160mil.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:21 pmComment by John Hitchcock — 1/17/2009 @ 5:17 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:25 pmDoes that mean you are coming back, John? Still friends? 🙂
No, you still have no clothes.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:37 pmHad to try.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:45 pmNo, you still have no clothes.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 1/17/2009 @ 5:37 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/17/2009 @ 5:58 pmOh but I do, John. You just can’t see it. You have not been chosen to see it. You need to be initiated into a new consciousness to see the Emperor’s new clothes. :p
#134 “permanently inane”??
The would be attacker confronted Jackson as he stepped outside. He raised a pistol which misfired. He raised another that also misfired. As he reached into his clothes as if for another weapon, Jackson stepped forward and caned him down. Jackson’s wife was a bit course, even smoking a pipe. Jackson on several occasions took arms in defense of her honor when men said insulting things about her. One man said or published something rude about her and Jackson said he would horsewhip the man. When he went to the man’s house with a horsewhip the man was waiting on his porch. He raised a pistol and shot Jackson, ending the fight. The ball(s?) lodged in his shoulder and he carried them the rest of his life.
Please explain “permanently inane”. Defending his wife, or caning the assassin?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:01 pmPlease inform your inferiors, Emperor.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:03 pmComment by daleyrocks — 1/17/2009 @ 5:13 pm
There. FTFY. Not that it’s my job to keep putting you right.
If you don’t trust the media, be careful even when you agree with them, that $160 million is not correct.
http://theartofpeace.blogspot.com/2009/01/at-last.html
David Weisman (0928c1) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:36 pmDavid Weisman,
The basic inaugural ceremonies were budgeted for $49M and reports suggest they will surpass that. That is significantly more than the $42M spent for Bush’s Inauguration. As you note, the remainder of the costs are for security and related costs. However, the security and related costs will be much larger for Obama than any prior Inauguration because he elected to open up the entire Mall. That’s why President Bush had to declare a State of Emergency — because the normal policing would be inadequate — and they had to fund more overtime, and bring in more police and military.
By the way, most of this information is in the link in the original post, and it was obliquely noted in the excerpt. No one is hiding the facts here. I hope you aren’t insinuating otherwise.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:44 pmDave,
If you have them, I’m interested in the security costs for prior Inaugurations. I’d like to compare them with Obama’s and provide an update in the post.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:51 pmOh good God! No siree, we cannot have a schlock affair for the Messiah and co. Did anyone notice how he seemed to be high on himself during the Obama Express ride? I mean, he is literally high on himself, full of himself to almost bursting. It’s sickening. And his little sing-song speeches make my ears bleed. I’m not sure I’ll be able to make it through 4 years of the maddening lovefest of this man.
Karen (ce69ff) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:13 pmFrom CNN, Obama about W:
“I mean, I think personally he is a good man who loves his family and loves his country,” Obama said in an exclusive interview with CNN’s John King.
During the election season, Obama frequently campaigned against what he called Bush’s “failed policies” and promised a “clean break” from the past eight years.
Asked if there was anything he wanted to take back, now that he has spent more time with the president, Obama praised Bush’s team for helping with a smooth transition and said part of what America is about is being able to have “disagreements politically and yet treat each other civilly.”
Obama also said he thought Bush made “the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.”
“That does not detract from my assessment that over the last several years, we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices,” Obama said.
My God, does that mean that ChimpyHalliburtonMcHitler wasn’t the anti-Christ after all? They just disagreed on “choices?”
Which ones? Just asking? And, by the way, I know what they will be. However, just maybe, politics isn’t an end-sum game. And, whoever we elect, knows the consequences.
Ag80 (4ac0a4) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:43 pm153 machinist: “permanently inane” was an overlooked gremlin from a correction.
158 karen: are you certain it won’t be at least 8 years and even more if his admirers do an end around the constitution. Hey, the new Lincoln’s excellence could push through an amendment to allow him to emulate the desires of a Hugo Chavez or actual long term presidency akin to Castro.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/17/2009 @ 8:57 pm153 btw, Jackson’s wife died in the time between his election and inauguration. He had married Rachel Robards before divorcing his first wife and the scandal stressed her terribly even thoughn they had been married for four decades.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:01 pmduh, Jackson’s wife was the one still married. My mistake. Her first had only filed for divorce and later charged her with adultery.
So we know more about Andrew pre-Potus history than we know about Obama’s. For some reason people are from his past are hesitant to speak up. The other Andrew (Sullivan) does admire him greatly though and along with Chrissie Matthews there should be a manage a trois. Can believe Power Glutes Sullivan was voted best blogger. Ugh.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:07 pmWell it looks like Obama’s not Hugo’s BFF right now. Did the PeBHO stiff him on an invitation to the RAPTURE? How about Ahmadamnutjob or that crazy NORK dude?
“Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:44pm GMT CAMPO CARABOBO, Venezuela (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the “stench” of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American “empire.”
Most world leaders expect a new era of U.S. foreign relations when Obama, a Democrat, is sworn in as president on Tuesday after Republican George W. Bush’s eight years in the White House.
But Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the “devil.”
“I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word,” Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.”
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:09 pm#160
Thank you.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/17/2009 @ 9:40 pmComment by aoibhneas — 1/17/2009 @ 8:57 pm
AD (fcdea3) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:35 pmPrevious Constitutional Amendments that effect the terms of Presidential office have always excepted any President in office at the time of ratification.
[…] one would be disappointed. To be sure, this isn’t the world’s biggest deal with me. But it’s nice to remind […]
Memes That Go Down The Memory Hole - Pejman_Yousefzadeh’s blog - RedState (796605) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:46 pm[…] one would be disappointed. To be sure, this isn’t the world’s biggest deal with me. But it’s nice to remind […]
Memes That Go Down The Memory Hole - Pejman_Yousefzadeh’s blog - RedState (796605) — 1/17/2009 @ 10:46 pm[…] one would be disappointed. To be sure, this isn’t the world’s biggest deal with me. But it’s nice to remind […]
ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Memes That Go Down The Memory Hole (c8cd02) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:00 amI was thinking, why this sudden Israeli ceasefire when hamass continues to fire missiles? I believe it has to be due to Israel’s not wanting to have pictures of continued military actions competing with Obama’s inaugural or the possibility of any mistaken military strike occurring on or before Inaugural Day, which could seriously p.o. the incoming president. You don’t want the incoming president who was weened on leftwing anti israel propaganda for three quarters of his life, to have any more excuse to whip Israel.
eaglewingz08 (ad2cae) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:20 amAs for the cost of the inauguration, we should be happy that it’s costing 160 million dollars, four times what Pres Bush’s cost. This will give free rein in the future to all republican inaugurals to have a sky the limit inaugural. When any future Republican is asked about it, they can say, it’s less than Obama’s and you applauded a quadrupling of the inaugural costs with no accountability of donors, so we’re just doing the same.
As for security, I don’t begrudge the increased security costs for good reason. We cannot afford the possibility of any assasaination attempt against Obama, that would be disastrous for our society.
Comment by eaglewingz08 — 1/18/2009 @ 5:20 am
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:25 amVery sensible post. Agree with you entirely.
169
Ummm… no…
Agree with you on Obama being a hater fed anti Isralite but as far as Israel goes, the anger at hving thousands of rockets aimed at your children by sneering terrorists who hold upchildren to stop shrapnel is why even though in nature Israel is more Liberal than Berkeley, they keep putting in conservatives
EricPWJohnson (b26bff) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:31 amBaracky is bringing the sulphur, apparently.
Kwame Kilpatrick (99243e) — 1/18/2009 @ 7:35 amto stop shrapnel is why even though in nature Israel is more Liberal than Berkeley, they keep putting in conservatives
An illustration of the phrase that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.
In a similar vein, I’m reminded of Obama’s choice of US Attorney General, a guy who will be in charge of law-enforcement issues, but who apparently also has expressed great skepticism about the fairness and role of police officers. Or the type who believes that statistics regarding the background of suspects and felons, and the high percentage of such people who are black and Latino, must be due to — here’s that word! — racism.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2009 @ 8:13 am[…] to Fausta and Patterico for the […]
Up North Mommy Talks Politics » The $160 million man (62d259) — 1/18/2009 @ 8:35 amAll that this opulence confirms is that the Devil does wear Prada!
Who is Michelle wearing to the ball? Lagerfeld or Yves Saint-Lauren? Who is Barak wearing? Cufflinks by Romanov?
All this hoo-haa makes Sarah Palin’s clothing budget look spartan.
steveaz (2e6d27) — 1/18/2009 @ 8:53 am-Steve
DRJ @ 7:51pm (#157):
NY Times Jan.5, 2009
So that would put Bush’s 2005 inauguration at a total cost of $157.8 million – about the same as the unsourced projection of $160 million provided by the NY Daily News that everyone seems to have picked up.
The original Daily News article is not terrible reporting (except for the stupid declarative headline which is undermined in the article’s first sentence). It was the other “news agencies” (such as the Guardian article you cite) that began to erroneously conflate the security & related costs into the costs for Obama’s inauguration and comparing that to Bush’s private inauguration expenses – which is just all around piss-poor journalism. The proper comparison would be approx. $45 million for Obama (the most often cited figure) to Bush’s $42.3 – but I guess that wasn’t inflammatory enough. The NY Times did a better job by actually digging up the relevant federal costs from 2005 and conveying that the equivalent costs for 2009 may be substantially greater; they didn’t attempt an overall estimate for 2009 for which there appears to be insufficient back-up.
I share your instincts DRJ, and would like to see comparative figures for Clinton & Bush’s first inaugurations, which I expect drew larger crowds than did their re-elections. However, given the historic nature of the first black presidency – regardless of the letter behind his name – I suspect the number of citizens who wished to share in that experience was always going to outdraw the crowds generated for two more white guys.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:01 pmBob,
I really appreciate your link and the effort you took to find it. The numbers are clearly getting closer but I don’t think we’re looking at comparable numbers because the Bush total included payments “for a holiday for federal workers.” I haven’t seen anything that includes the costs of a federal holiday in the Obama total.
In addition, the linked article makes that unlikely since the “District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.” I think it’s logical to assume that other security and cleanup costs will increase by a similar factor.
Thus, either the comparable Bush number was substantially less than $157M or the comparable Obama number is substantially more than $160M.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:25 pmI wasn’t insinuating that you personally were hiding something. I might have been insinuating that you distrusted the liberal media unless what they said appealed to you, in which case you accepted it unquestioningly. If so I retract it, your determination to examine all the assertions and determine the actual facts exceeds mine. I think even in 2005 I thought the inauguration costs were the least of our problems. I’m not even prepared to say Obama’s inauguration isn’t excessive – I would have to decide how to evaluate that. My interest is in the irony of those who rant about the mainstream media being untrustworthy – until they like what it says. I like to think if the inauguration cost was itself important to me, I would make the effort to do what you seem to be thinking of doing, but since I haven’t done so the irony is turned around as far as you are concerned, and I can think about my own sources of information and how I decide how much to credit.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration
That’s the other set of numbers someone offered at Protein Wisdom, if you’re interested. Between that and my previous link is all the information I have.
David Weisman (0928c1) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:39 pmThanks, Dave, and I agree with you about the irony of believing the media in some cases and not others. Patterico has mentioned this in other posts but even when I see specific examples of how the media makes mistakes or is deceptive, I still find myself trusting what I read in the newspapers. It’s weird, isn’t it? I think it’s because of the era I was raised in, a time when people trusted the newspapers and the media and we didn’t have the resources to spot problems.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:44 pmDRJ,
That’s because you haven’t seen any reliable estimates for the Obama inauguration yet – the NY Daily News figure is completely unsourced without any attempt at trying to tell the reader how they arrived at that figure. However, if anyone does actually attempt to compile a realistic estimate (before or after the event), you can bet that the costs of the MLK Day holiday is going to be factored in – labor costs are the main component and the holiday is going to affect them obviously.
I agree the public costs are going to be higher than 2005 – that’s the price of popularity. From the Daily News article it appears that the private Obama committee is picking up the additional technical costs (jumbotrons etc.), but again the fed has to provide for the extra security/medical needs. That’s no excuse for the poor reporting that is making it’s way across the internets making claims that just aren’t so. I don’t think you believe the public costs are going to be $462 million (4x the 2005 costs), do you? Maybe its $160 mil. compared to the actual $115.5 mil. spent in 2005? I don’t know, and based on the current reporting neither does anyone else.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:12 pmBob,
Here’s what I think based on what I’ve seen so far:
Here are some of my questions:
* What’s included in the “other” costs for both Inaugurations — security, federal holiday, other?
* I assume the Bush numbers are known. How reliable are the Obama estimates?
* How much was paid by each Inaugural committee and to whom will it be paid? The Obama Inaugural committee is being paid $3M by HBO, Disney, etc., for the exclusive right to show Inaugural events like today’s concert and the children’s concert. But according to this report, that money is being turned over to the production company for the Inaugural events, even though the company is only paying 1/3 of the costs. That leaves the taxpayers paying the remaining 2/3 of the Inaugural event costs without any reimbursement.
* Finally, Obama has had 4 days of Inaugural events. That alone could dramatically increase the costs, perhaps even to 4 times as much, don’t you think?
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:25 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/18/poll.obama.rating/index.html?iref=newssearch
” The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Sunday also indicates that most Americans see Obama’s inauguration as a chance for the nation to come together.
Eighty-four percent of those surveyed say they approve of how Obama is handling the presidential transition. That’s up 2 points from the middle of December and up 5 points from the beginning of December.”
Here I thought you guys were just being the opposition party. I didn’t realize you were in 16%.
imdw (2946bf) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:36 pmRemember Bush’s 90% approval rating, imdw?
Pablo (99243e) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:03 pmimdw shows that the reality is unimportant, only the hype is, with Obama.
An unprecedented level of vacuousness.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:07 pmPolls are how you measure propaganda effectiveness.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:07 pmSPQR put that really well. Baracky is like Double Strength Double Size Sugar Free Rockstar with Guarana I think. Energy without calories.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:11 pm^ It helps that a lot of simpleminded leftism dominates black America. Or the type of thinking that is evident when, for example, so many voters in Washington DC pull the lever, time and time again, for politicians with the corruption-plagued track record of DC’s former mayor and current councilman Marion Barry.
CNN.com:
Nine out of 10 African-Americans questioned in the poll say Obama’s election is a dream come true. Six in 10 also say they’re thrilled by Obama’s impending inauguration. Only a quarter of white respondents feel the same way.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:12 pmHere’s another reason:
“Remember Bush’s 90% approval rating, imdw?”
I do.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
Obama’s high approval seems to have come without as much death. I do think its a peak though.
“imdw shows that the reality is unimportant, only the hype is, with Obama.”
Uh, the reality is people approve of how this inaugural is being handled, 160 million bucks or not.
imdw (5a32ad) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:13 pmYay! I love the happy parts. Except phony happy parts like the Olympic Games or Shrek sequels or dirty socialist inaugurations.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:16 pm“Eighty-four percent of those surveyed say they approve of how Obama is handling the presidential transition.”
imdw – Don’t read too much into that. Part of it depends on the expectations people had going in. Remember that 58 million people voted for the other guy and are just glad the dirty socialist didn’t appoint Bill Ayers Education Secretary or John Kerry Secretary of State, for example. That doesn’t mean they have suddenly become worshippers at the altar of Teleprompter Jesus.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:20 pm187 the other 10% of blacks must be race traitors. I suspect that 90% of blacks would have voted for William Jefferson, Marion Barry, Alcee Hastings. Kwame Fitzpatrick, Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, OJ Simpsom, Mikey Jackson or you name it lib assclown Negro over any Republican for Potus.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:29 pmI just noticed this other part of the article (below) I snipped above from the Washington Post.
Also, previous reports on the different moods found among groups of people based on their politics indicated that Republicans were happier than Democrats regardless of income level. IOW, upper-income Republicans were happier than upper-income Democrats, moderate-income conservatives were happier than moderate-income liberals and lower-income Republicans/conservatives were happier than lower-income Democrats/liberals.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:36 pmWell see for real the one good thing what’s come out of this is that black people get a real genuine kick out of it. It’s not like that’s an endlessly replicable dealio. I say let them have have their moment and all for all the realness what they can imbue it with. All the realness what they can imbue it with as long as I don’t have to get all rah rah about it anyway.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:38 pm187 the other 10% of blacks must be race traitors.
In terms of a word like “traitor,” I have no doubt that most voters of African-American descent would rather see a country managed by 100% white liberals than, say, 80% (much less 100%) black conservatives.
That one-sided political sentiment is a major reason I believe that various forms of dysfunction have been so difficult to squeeze out of a cross-section of the black populace. For instance, the number of black youth, who based on recent data, have been murdering other black youth at a greater rate over the past 10 years, even as rates of crime in general have leveled off or declined.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:48 pm“Remember that 58 million people voted for the other guy and are just glad the dirty socialist didn’t appoint Bill Ayers Education Secretary or John Kerry Secretary of State, for example.”
Fitting that past wingnut idiocy now translates into high levels of approval for obama.
“That doesn’t mean they have suddenly become worshippers at the altar of Teleprompter Jesus.”
And yet wingnut idiocy will continue. People like the guy — there’s a small percent who dont, and they’re dead set on making popularity seem like something untoward. By tossing around Jesus’s name, even.
imdw (e36369) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:48 pmimdw, “wingnut” is usually a perfect indicator that the speaker has nothing intelligent to contribute. Thanks for giving us the clear cues.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:57 pm“imdw, “wingnut” is usually a perfect indicator that the speaker has nothing intelligent to contribute.”
Bill Ayers as education secretary. Think about how dumb that is.
imdw (f359a4) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:01 pmMeanwhile, the Democrat worship of Obama is getting more nauseating.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:03 pmThere’s a few problems in your figures and assumptions DRJ:
The comparable Obama cost estimate is $45M. This is the amount privately raised by each’s respective Inaugural Committees as outlined in the Times article. This money provides for the cost of staging all the actual events with (I believe) the exception of the actual capitol ceremony which is provided for by $1.24M ($10,000 less than 2005!) from the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (see Daily News). [Note that according to the Daily News Obama’s IC is even “allocating $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution for extended museum hours.”]
The $49M you picked up was the figure provided to the Daily News from the Office of Management and Budget, and is their estimate for the federal portion of the security/medical/transportation/porta-potty/clean-up (i.e. ‘hosting’) costs that are (I assumes) borne jointly by the Feds, State and Municipal govs. involved. No reporting on the comparable costs for 2005 (although the Daily News reports this is 3x as high as in 2001 – also note that all security post-2001 carries a premium), but the 2005 Fed ‘hosting’ cost would be included in the $115.5M “other” government costs reported by the Times.
I’m sorry DRJ, but your link does not support an estimate of $140M or any other figure other than the re-reporting of the OMB estimate of $49M – they get the comparison mixed up in the first paragraph and then just keep going. The Daily Mail does supply this additional info:
But there is no comparative for previous inaugurations. I assume this is on top of the OMB estimate and had a comparable cost buried in the 2005 $115.5M figure reported by the times. If this is the extent of the non-Fed hands out and the OMB is accurate in their budgeting we can extrapolate a $124M “other” cost estimate for 2009 [WARNING: dangerous assumptions currently under construction!].
I think I’ve already covered most of your questions, but in regard to the Denver Post item, in case it’s not already clear, the funds privately raised by Obama’s Inauguration Committee will cover all other expenses related to those events (except ‘hosting’ costs). [I don’t know if this exclusive television licensing is a new innovation, but if so that’s some sharp thinking!]
I have no idea (and less interest in researching) how long inaugural events generally have lasted before. I will note though that any ‘hosting’ costs incurred by the city and states involved are not without their own economic benefits to those same city and states. Every large municipality generally has annual heated arguments over the public expense/cost-benefit of this or that public/private event. The Federal benefit may be more nebulous, but remember: historic! 😉
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:04 pm“Bill Ayers as education secretary. Think about how dumb that is.”
imdw – He currently serves as a Vice President of Curriculum Studies for the American Education Research Association, an elected position. Given his teaching position and scholarship in the area of education, how far fetched is it really? He is rehabilitated isn’t he and not a terrorist, just a war protestor according to the left?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:32 pmBob – Let me see if I understand this. You have pointed out where you believe DRJ’s numbers make a comparison misleading. You have then assembled numbers for the Obama inauguration but you don’t know whether they are comparable (dangerous assumptions under construction), but since they are close you are going with them.
Does that summarize your position?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:39 pm“98.6% of Americans approve of Obama’s letter to his daughters.”
OMG, what morons.
“99.3% of Americans approve of Obama eating apple pie for dinner.”
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:08 pmSo 80% agree with the BHO transition they know nothing of…..
Stats don’t lie but liars use stats.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:09 pmMeanwhile, the Democrat worship of Obama is getting more nauseating.
Comment by SPQR — 1/18/2009 @ 5:03 pm
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.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:16 pmDaley,
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.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:19 pmBob – I think we’re in agreement.
“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.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:29 pmThanks daley.
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.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:45 pm“Stats don’t lie but liars use stats.”
You raise this point in a post titled ‘The $160M Inauguration.’ Good show.
imdw (4fe3dc) — 1/18/2009 @ 10:14 pmOnly 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..
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:25 am“You raise this point in a post titled ‘The $160M Inauguration.’”
Which was based on actual MSM reporting!
The Deciders!!!!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/19/2009 @ 8:51 amABC reports the cost is up to $170M or more.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/19/2009 @ 3:42 pmWhat you people who have a problem with the money fail to realize is the budget for this was approved in 2001 by Congress. I would also bet that none of us ever thought this who’d it be spent on. This money didn’t just happen. Also, the Inaug Cmmtt raised over $45 mill alone from donations of 50k max and selling merchandise. Don’t be stupid forever-for the lack of knowledge being the reason.
The Truth (9317ae) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:18 pm