London tabloid concocts the cost of Obama's inauguration; Drudge cheers
January 14, 2009 2:02 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
London's Daily Mail claims the cost of Obama's inauguration is approaching $160 million:
By the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m.
Not surprisingly, the newspaper provides no attribution for the figure. (The actual cost is closer to $40 million.) But that doesn't matter because Drudge has linked to the Daily Mail's report and we're sure reporters are on the phone as we speak.
Drudge today also linked to an article I wrote at Salon four years ago chastising the press for not asking questions about the cost of the Bush 2005 inauguration ($40 million), which at the time shattered all the spending records and occurred at a time when the war in Iraq was still front-and-center. (Although it cost roughly the same, Bush's bash attracted just a fraction of the crowd expected for Obama's swearing in.)
Drudge claims my article captured the "lefty outrage" at the cost of Bush's 2005 celebration. In truth, a strong majority of Americans (66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans) thought that, in light of the fresh fighting in Iraq, Bush's inauguration should have been more "subdued."
But thanks for the link anyway Matt, I'm sure Salon appreciates the traffic.
FYI, the $40 million figure for the Bush and Obama inaugurations is in reference to the cost of the swearing in and the activities surrounding that. The extra cost of state and federal security is not traditionally included in media references to the final tab for inaugurations. In the case of Bush in 2005, the cost of security added tens of millions of dollars on top of the final $40 million figure. The same will be true for Obama this year.
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, fact-free warbloggers like Jawa Report are falling for the phony report that Obama's inauguration will cost two or three times what Bush's did in 2005.
Media Matters: On health care reform, the Fox News noise machine is cranked to 11
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
It's not the size of the party, but what it is you're celebrating, that's important.
The notion that anybody anywhere would have danced or sang or dined or drank to the fact that George W. Bush was President of the United States, that notion is perverse to Truth JUSTICE and the American Way.
In addition, it must be taken into account that whatever the costs of the upcoming Inaugural celebration, it pays for not just one celebration, but for two: because there is no doubt that millions upon millions of the American People are at the same time dancing and singing and dining and drinking to the end of the Bush administration of our Federal Government, as they are to the beginning of the Obama administration.
Thank you, thank you, Eric for calling this one out. It can be very frustrating for those of us who follow the right wing crazies in their echo chamber who follow the daily unsubstantiated claims from Drudge and Politico.
We can sit back and laugh sometimes at the ridiculous way that FoxNew, Drudge and Politico's Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith feed off each other with ridiculous inuendo and lack of research.
When it really hurts the system is when CNN, Yahoo, FoxNews, et. al. pick up Drudge's baloney links from Breitbart, Daily Mail, Wahington Times, etc. and report it LIKE REAL NEWS!
We are going to need you throughout these coming years as non-facts continue to seep into the MSM bloodstream from these wounded and angry partisans.
So let me get this straight, the righties are overstating the cost, while the majority of the MSM state that it will cost $50M and you low ball at $40M. At $40M you were outraged at bush, but you don't seem to be using the same vitriol toward Obama for spending more in a worse economy?
It's also fascinating that because Obama will get bigger crowds that seems to make it all OK. How is that? Do we require a per capita justification for this outlay when a majority of it will not be spent on a majority of those participating?
How about pointing us to your balanced outrage toward the outrageous spending now?
Nice to see you can walk that double standard with no worries.
There's no double standard. It's a lot of money wither way, but spending $40M to accomodate a crowd of 10K is all about YOU, while spending the same to accomodate a crowd of several million is all about THEM. (Obviously I just pulled those crowd estimates out of my ---, but the point remains.) You con's seem to think Obama is arrogant or egotistical becasue he is admired by so many. That's absurd. BUSH is both arrogant and egotistical becuase he was despised by so many, and yet continued to insist he was right, and believe that he would one day be vindicated. Obama may turn out the same way, time will tell, but anyone who's levelling that criticism before he's even in office is and idiot. Bush's last swearing in was the continuation of an incumbant's term. To break spending records on THAT absolutely comes off as more of a personal celebration - almost mocking his opposition. Spending the same on a NEW president, the first BLACK president - not just in the US, but really anywhere in the world outside of continental Africa - as well as a change of parties, both during a tie a war, and after after the incumbants made claims of a permanent majority (again: arrogant, egotistical)... Yeah. MUCH more significant, politically and historically.
There's no double standard here at all. Just a bunch of con's who (as usual) have no clue.