The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration
Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.
The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.
It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.
The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.
With its declarative headline, "Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million," the New York Daily News reported:
It will take Barack Obama less than a minute to recite the oath of office -- and when he's done dancing at the inaugural balls Jan. 20, the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million.
Obama's inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005. In 1993, Clinton spent $33 million when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.
Talk about red flags: "could approach"? See the extraordinary freedom that kind of loose language allows? Of course, technically speaking, it's true the inauguration spending "could approach" $160 million. It also "could approach" $400 million or $900 million. There's literally no limit to the number that could be inserted into the phrasing, especially when the Daily News provided so little basis for the jumbo figure.
The closest the Daily News came to explaining the $160 million was its noting that the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland had submitted a $75 million request to the federal government to cover inauguration costs, including security and transportation. Bottom line: The Daily News provided no facts -- no evidence -- to support its what-if $160 million price tag for the inauguration, a price tag the newspaper declared as fact in its attention-grabbing headline.
The next day, a January 14 article in the London tabloid, the Daily Mail, also used an inflated figure, but offered zero reporting to back it up. (The Daily Mail piece created a big stir when the Drudge Report linked to it.)
The Daily Mail lead: "Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m [$155 million] making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history."
The story continued:
The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.
But 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 [roughly $162 million].
The cost was revealed as Mr Obama scrambled to answer questions about the nomination of Treasury Secretary pick Timothy Geithner.
"Was revealed"? Who revealed the $162 million figure? The Daily Mail never said. And much like the Daily News, the figures mentioned in the Daily Mail simply did not add up to the final cost the newspaper hyped.
Unfortunately, that didn't matter. At least not to conservative partisans who grabbed onto the Daily Mail story (via Drudge) and announced a blatant hypocrisy existed within the press because, they claimed, four years earlier, reporters and liberal pundits raised questions about the cost of Bush's inauguration, but suddenly were mum about Obama's, even though at $160 million, it was going to cost nearly four times as much as Bush's bash. (Actually, it wasn't just liberals or the press raising questions about the Bush inauguration; a strong majority of Americans wished Bush, during a time of war, had scaled back the glitz for his second swearing-in.)
Online, the inauguration condemnations were swift and fierce. The cost of "Obama's upcoming celebration" was "dwarfing" any previous swearing-in expenses and was climbing into "the $100 millions," claimed right-wing weblog The Jawa Report, which relied on the Daily Mail for its misinformation.
The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.
Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:
The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.
For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.
In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's.
That's why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama's swearing-in would cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." So did Flopping Aces, a shining light of the right-wing blogosphere:
President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.
If portions of the press and the blogosphere want to now suggest that the cost of security should also be factored into the final tab for presidential inaugurations, they need to go back and recalculate the cost for Bush's 2005 swearing-in in order to have an honest comparison. Because with security included, the 2005 inauguration cost a lot more than $42 million -- just as with security factored in, Obama's will also cost a lot more than $45 million. (The final tab, though, likely won't be known for months.)
The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration's unprecedented move to turn the nation's capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?
Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration," The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: "[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government."
However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis added].
You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.
Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.
So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?
I doubt they'll stop - they need anything and everything to slam him. Things like this are downright unfair -- I may not be a big fan of his anymore (used to be, way back during the days of the "exploratory committees"), but let's be consistent with criticisms and quit pandering to party oneupsmanship.
Are you talking about Bush? LOL.... because even going out of office you dogs won't leave that bone alone.
Says the person who brings up Bill Clinton every chance she gets...
Longer MissDee:
"Hey look over here!!!!! Pay attention to me!!!! I don't really believe in much of anything except what the highly paid professional liars tell me to but I get all kinds of hot feelings through my spine at the thought that my idiotic ramblings might annoy someone else who thinks differently than the way my idols do. I, of course, have no thought patterns other than the ones supplied to me."
Shorter MissDee's universal answer to everything in the universe ever:
"LibsSuck LOLS!"
And you repug dogs won't leave the hydrant alone will you MissedDee?
Shorter MissDee: WAAAAAHHHHH!
You lost, whiner, cry some more.
Anyone else notice that we haqve over 3000 words in the article and the protectors of the "truth", while criticizing everyone else never once tell us what the real number is. So how can things be false if we never know the truth. Also, here again MM parse the facts and add not only security to the GWB number but the labor cost of a holiday for all government workers. So now let's add that to the Obamination as well.
Come on MM - give us the real true side by side comparitive numbers on the 2009 and 2005 inagurations!!
1. Obama's Inauguration will cost an amount approaching a billion dollars, roughly fifty times what George W Bush's Inauguration cost (why waste time actually breaking down numbers? It's just red meat, its not like any listeners are going to factcheck, it need not have any basis in reality.)
2. Nancy Pelosi insists on a private jet even though no House Speaker in History has ever had one, because she sees herself as a princess (again, don't worry about listeners fact-checking; they think that Fox, Hannity etc. deal with facts, and those guys think for them.)
3. Obama is actually going to fly around in a real expensive plane while President. He's so full of himself, he's insisting that the name of the plane be "Air Force One!" How pretentious!! And he's going to live in this huge mansion in DC! And he's going to insist that the street passing the front of the house be blocked off from all automobile traffic!! Who does he think he is, King Barack I?
Coming next week- the Democratic Majority in the Senate has made sure that Senators have their own barbor shop, gym, elevators and even an UNDERGROUND RAIL SYSTEM to get them from building to building! Lord, where will it all end??
we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.
With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?
As a member of the partisan press himself, Boehlert was critical of the press for not covering Bush's inauguration spending back in 2005. And he didn't even have proper numbers to be critical about in that column as he was using a $70 million figure.
I agree that this new $160 million figure for Obama should be explained and put in context, but Boehlert can't pretend to be above the partisan nonsense. He's right there. If Bush spending $70 million (which was a low estimate as it turns out) was a problem in a time of war, then Obama spending his millions should be a problem in a time of financial crisis.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration
He's not saying Obama is right to spend whatever Obama is spending. He's saying it's not fair for reporters to compare an inflated number for Obama to a lowball estimate for Bush.
Don't confuse brucie with the facts. He'll be a factose-intolerant shrub-shillin' gopologist until his dyin' day.
Is this what passes for intelligent argument 'round these parts?
I was wondering why it took Mr. Boehlert 22 paragraphs to actually get around to naming what he feels is the actual dollar amount for Obama's bash.
He backs up his position, he's never tryed to pretend that he is not partisan. How this delutes his position is unclear. Bias alone and unsupported rhetoric is worth calling out. This falls well out of that description.
It delutes his position when he screans about partisamship when he's partisan himself, as is the case with all the leftniks on here.
And you do know the difference between a web site that declares itself to be partisan, and a "news" network that declares something a fact that isn't?
Or a "news" network that declares itself "fair and balanced."
At worst, I think if offered a chance for an open debate with one of your heros. (no partisanship there right) He'd be hard pressed to control his anticipation.
Welcome to the revolution Miss D. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Hey repug, leave alone one the best liberal bands that exist, "The Who".
Is "partisan" the extra point word-of-the-week? Before we continue, what is the neo con deffintion of that word? Just to keep this thread to some semblance of consistency. Perhaps avoiding the "I don't think that word means what you think it means coment."
Do you ever stop crying, you whiner?
Dont ever expect Boehlert to compare the two items in an even handed manner. That is not his job or goal. And dont ever point out what he has said in the past. His goal is not truth, his goal is bash the GOP at any and all costs.
This is a zero sum game here. When we have americans killed because of some one Obama released from GITMO, he will find a way to blame it on Bush. It is only a matter of time.
So if the conservatives pull numbers out of their asses or thin air, that's OK, but if Boehlert compares real numbers to real numbers he's "bashing the GOP?"
I guess either you or I doesn't understand the definition of "bash" in this context, and I think we all know which one it is.
Real numbers? Where, if not out of his ass, did Boehlert obtain the $42.3 million figure attributed to Bush's inauguration in 2005?
"Out of his ass"? Didn't you read the article?
Don't believe it would be hard all you have to do is look up how much his fans gave to this non-profit event. It would all be in the records they do have to supply this information for tax purposes.
The security cost I believe could be estimated by taking the average of a normal month of security and put that up to what the month of the swearing in was, it's just and estimate put it would be close enough for government work.
In Boehlert's analysis of the numbers being used in these stories and the lack of sourcing for the reports on the upcoming election, did he lie? Has he invented figures, left out important facts, or misrepresented news reports he is commenting on?
When? Nice straw man argument there. I also notice you are expecting that everyone at guantonomo will either not be found guilty by trial or not even go to trial. A strawman argument hidden in a strawman argument - who said you couldn't count to 2?
His goal is not truth, his goal is bash the GOP at any and all costs.
What does this article have to do with the GOP? It's about the press.
Press...GOP...same thing.
"When we have americans killed because of some one Obama released from GITMO, he will find a way to blame it on Bush. It is only a matter of time."
Obama is going to release them??? Where did you hear this?
I have heard of the intent to close the prison at Gitmo. But I haven't heard Obama or his surrogates say anything about simply releasing them.
If you ever dealt in anything with facts someone could take you seriously. Get over it repug, you don't count for anything.
As a long time, hard lefty, I consider it a great tragedy that the Right is so discredite, I think it is healthy for there to be robust argument back and forth, but when you raise this spectre of prisoners released from Gitmo commiting terror there is a bit of a' boy who cried wolf' reaction that goes on. The State department has published numerous lists of people who have committed terrorist acts after release, and examination has shown that the lists are filled with people who were never held in custody, or whose apparent acts of terror were writing Op/ed articles. It may very well be that these people pose a grave threat, the problem is that after playing politics with absolutely every statistic in every department of every branch of government, for the past eight years, the Right has made itself so un-credible that you can't take anything they say seriously.
A great tragedy.
"but Boehlert can't pretend to be above the partisan nonsense."
Stop trying to taint Boehlert with that fake to the core transparency that Republicans try to pull off with their non-partisan act. Boehlert never said he was non-partisan.
Are you really that stupid? Or are you simply ate up with Republican bs?
Roundhouse: I must admit that I've never come across anyone who reacts towards me with the hostility that you do.
I'm really not worth getting upset about, I don't change anybody's mind and I'm not relevent in any way.
I enjoy the exchange of ideas on the threads but I'm not interested in being insulted.
I let loose on you because you should know better. You're not stupid but you act stupid to allow yourself to believe stupid Republican bs. You typify the banality of evil.
Your response is like a spouse abuser blaming the spouse for his/her behavior.
Disagreement is fine. Insults from you will no longer be tolerated. I will let MMFA deal with it if it continues.
Thanks Eric.
It makes no difference what the price tag is. The real hypocrisy is the way the liberal elite media reports on it. Four years ago, the same leftist journalists were screaming like howler monkeys about the "exorbant" and "self-aggrandizing" Bush ceremony, some going so far as to break down the number of Humvees and body armor the money could have bought. They reacted with contempt and disgust that George Bush dared spend more than 10 bucks to be sworn in during a time of war, but look at what we have now. The conservative media is wondering where the same outrage and disgust is, and the elitist left is firing back with "well it's not the same. Your numbers are off." NOT THE POINT!!! Where are those same journalists today? Why aren't they writing about "this amount of money could keep x number of people in their homes, or assist thousands of filthy poor people in getting job training. This Obama self aggrandizement is an outrage." The answer? They're silent because they're biased.
"the liberal elite media...were screaming like howler monkeys about the 'exorbitant' and 'self-aggrandizing' Bush ceremony" -- you want your readers to think that "elite" means "big name in mainstream national media" and that "screaming like howler monkeys" means "commented angrily on it over and over again". Of course neither is true.
Like Boehlert's article, my post wouldn't have existed if the partisans could just manage being partisan without BSing about it.
Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeve,
Pretending, or declaring, that something is untrue doesn't make it so. Perhaps someday you, the media, and our president-eject will realize that.
Boehlert linked to the sources on which he based his assertions. What sources do you have that contradict them? Pretending, or delcaring, that what Bohelert says is untrue doesn't make it so.
Actually, no. Boehlert provided no link to his assertion that Bush spent $42.3 million in 2005.
Are we reading the same Boehlert article?
He cited the $42.3 million from the New York Daily News article, then he cited the additional $115.5 million for security, the ceremony, and cleanup from a New York Times article. Then he did the math, coming up with a price tag of $157 million for the 2005 Bush inauguration.
Don't make a flat, bald assertion complaining about someone making a flat, bald assertion.
You faked a media frenzy and got busted. You had to go to friggin' ENGLAND to find a second story. Suck on it.
During actual media frenzies ("invented the internet", "trashed the white house") there are dozens, sometimes thousands, of stories across the entirety of the national media landscape.
feel free to post a link or two backing up that claim.
You don't remember the media coverage of the last innauguration?
Here, snoopy, try this site: www.alz.org
You're really using a link to a site about alzheimer's as proof of liberal coverage of the last innauguration?
It's humor. Lighten up, puppy.
It wasn't funny. Skin yourself, kitty.
That's the same excuse clueless coulter uses when she gets called on her psychotic slop, little fella. It don't work any better for you.
Ah, the classic 'nut defense when they don't have anything: Be a jerk, then say OMGZORZ IT HUMER STOOPID LIB HUR HUR.
Try acting like an adult, you petulant baby.
Former Dem
My fear is that you think that by posting actual stories, quotes, or examples to prove that you are correct will actually make a difference. You can go to great pains to use the exact words of Clinton, Obama, or MMFA, and the Col, snoopy, and a variety of others here will simply attack you, yell stawman or troll (two of my personal favorites) or simply ignore you. They will never deal with what you present, and they will never say anything like good point, maybe you are right, or even I never thought of that.
This could be a great sight to discuss news items, debate points etc, and on rare occasions that happens. To often however, the kool aid drinking regulars make sure that that never occurs, and the party line is tightly toed.
The party line is tightly toed?
This coming from one of the most extreme and inflexible righties who've ever posted here.
Yeah, I'm fully aware of the tactics. I used to be one until i graduated college and met my first employer. Great man. Opened me up to reality. But before that, I was just like these guys. Every time someone used facts and logic to refute me I would lash out with personal attacks and tell that person how "insensitive" they were and how "unfair" they were being. It's the conversational equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la la la la, I cant hear you proving me wrong, la la la la la." Or in the case of Obama supporters, repeating LOUDLY as the other person is speaking "Wuu-ever, wuu-ever, wuu-ever." It's really kind of amusing.
Were you peronally attacked in this thread?
This thread? No, I have not. But I never said i was. I was simply illustrating the emotional leftist debate tactics that I once used. I'm confident that it won't be long until I'm personally attacked, though. It's OK, happens all the time. when it happens, then I know that I'm right.
"emotional leftist debate tactics that I once used."
So, just because you supposedly used them in a former life, you have "confidence" that it won't be long before you are victimized in the same way.
I see.
Yes, that is correct.
'Nuff said. LMAO
I'm having a pretty good laugh, too Pete.These threads are always some of the most adorable to me, when you get a couple of wingnuts using their imaginations to try to convince each other that they'd be getting all sorts of recognition for their amazing comments, if it weren't for the hate and bias of those darn leftist Kool Aid drinkers.
Of course, there are reasonable conservative posters here who get positive comments all the time, but don't let that get in the way of Pointy & FD's pity party.The only possible reason that they're laughed at is because other people are stoopid. Nothing is ever their fault. I swear, if it weren't for Victim Mentality, the far right wouldn't have no mentality at all.
I love the premise that "emotional debate tactics" are relegated only to those on the left, and that personal attacks only come from the "leftists," in this forum, even though he/she has yet to be victimized in such a way. I'm playing the world's tiniest violin right now.
I'm always bowled over by how these guys were either saved from life as a commie by their "first employer" or how they attribute their anti-war antics in their youth as something to blame on a professor who led them down the wrong path.
The best is that now that they've come to their senses, they're here trying to save us like some guy at the front door selling "The Watchtower".
So you never were clear thinking at anytime. Repug you are, most likely from birth.
So you think that because those are the arguments that you used in college that there are none better? There is plenty of fact and logic to support leftist positions if you take the time to look into them. If you just accept it as the currently cool thing to do, which many of us did in h.s. or college, then of course you will not have any good arguments and have to resort to namecalling when you are challenged. But that doesn't mean there is not good substantial evidence and valid arguments on the left.
And, funny, but my employer during college gave me a first-hand look at the way the wealthy get that way by taking advantage of others, and their cynical "I got mine too bad for everyone else" pov. And I was not at leftie at the time, it's one of the things that turned me in the other direction.
I'm still wondering what it has to do with the point of Boehlert's article.
He or she wanted to derail the thread.
No sir, we actually do say good point and all. Its just that posters like you have yet to make one.
"DON'T post the complete text of an article. Rather, post one or two paragraphs and a link to the complete story. It is helpful to other posters if you explain why this article is relevant to the topic at hand. Posts containing complete articles will be removed."
Pointofview:
See this is a perfect example. Instead of pete addressing the FACT that I proved my earlier post 100% correct, he has chosen to scold me because I b#@ch-slapped Snoopy "improperly". Humorous. Next they'll be pointing out my spelling and grammar errors. Anything to avoid the truth.
How true it is. And as some one who is dyslexic I make spelling mistakes all the time. Those they attack, facts, reason, and common sense they tend to avoid....lol. See, you posted the entire article, how could you. Now, had you only posted part of it, then you would be a lying sob who took it out of context.
Had he/she only posted part of it and given a link, he/she would be in compliance with the forum's terms of use, and the chances of it being read by other posters would, IMO, still be the same.
pointofview, speaking of ignoring things, yesterday on the "little debate" thread you made the assertion that bin laden was "offered" to clinton. i asked you when and where that happened. and gosh darn it, you didn't provide an answer, you just moved on to this thread where you complain about your treatment. you just said "they [the posters here] will never deal with what you present". i think it's sort of, physician heal thyself, before you start babbling about others.
Isn't that odd, Mefirst? It's always the same little group of wingnut trolls, whining about not being taken seriously, being ignored, accusing those awful lefties of not wanting a serious discussion.
And as soon as somebody gets bored enough of the whining, and actually takes the time to address their BS, they magically disappear, popping up on another thread to start all over again. I think just this week I've seen Philib, Pointy, AA and BlagoBoy working this bit.
They're only here to wear the clown shoes, as human piñatas, but I'm glad they take themselves seriously. They wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if they were trying to be funny.
Hey Col. I'm not trying to change the subject or trying to be cute,but how do you get the little accent dealy over the n in pinata? My keyboard literacy is diminutive.
Sig, some people use the character map in Windows (accesories-> system tools-> character map), I just use the Windows Alt.codes.
̱š ¢°°£ ¡
Thanks Col.
Hardly. one of your two links was to a site about alzheimers which you claimed was proof of some concerted liberal press bias, and your other link traces back to one reporter running one story, and again suggested that was proof of a concerted media biased coverage against bush. One guy. One show. Not dozens of reporters running hundreds of stories over and over again like fox news, just one. That's it. One.
I used the alzheimer's link to help you with YOUR PROBLEM in recalling how the media treated George Bush. Geez grow a sense of humor.
And, yeah, I brought one article. ONE. One article that references 3 other articles: two AP articles and a british article. that's not enough for you? You did in fact write: Feel free to post "a link or two" backing up that claim.
so, I chose to post "a link" instead of two. But I backed up my claim..perfectly at that.
I congratulate you on providing an example of ONE person on ONE show, but no, that isn't enough to back up your claim of some mass media bias by american journalists. Since I don't normally follow british news why would I worry about what they say? They've got about as much influence in the US as gerbils on parade.
On a side note, how many millions in taxpayers dollars has bush spent saying goodbye as he tries to get a pat on the back for imaginary successes like privatizing social security?
OK, just so we're clear. The MMFA article at the top of this thread is by ONE guy who references 3 articles (one British article, by the way). the writer works for an organization that watch-dogs conservative media. (Boehlert, MMFA)
The article I posted was by ONE guy who references 3 articles (one British). This writer works for an organization that watch-dogs liberal media. (Noyes, MRC).
You have discredited and discarded the article I posted because of its narrow scope. So, would you discredit the MMFA article for its equally narrow scope???? Would you demand that the MMFA writer provide more and more examples because 3 articles isn't enough to back up the MMFA claim of some mass media bias by american journalists? And besides, WHO CARES what the british say, right?
Do you see your hypocrisy, snoopy? Do you NOT recall the news media frenzy about Bush's inauguration and "how could he throw this elaborate extravaganza during times like these"? Have you honestly forgotten that? If so, I have already offered a link to a site that can help you with your condition. (www.alz.org, in case you've already forgotten that, too). I like you, snoopy. You're funny.
The guy you ripped off only referenced one article to make the claim that there was a media frenzy regarding Bush's "elaborate extravaganza during times like these".
you're the one claiming some mass frenzy and can only provide a single example of it. So far I've added a good half dozen showing the opposite of what you are claiming. But keep trying, I'm sure you'll be able to find something else. In fact, I really hope you do, because watching you struggle is really painful.
And here's a little extra to back up my claim against your claim:
some exerpts from the link:
Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function -- posing uncomfortable questions to those in power -- with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive.
This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.
Nonetheless, like butter on a humid summer day in Washington, reporters have simply melted away from asking pointed questions about the costly security overkill (nearly 9,000 police officers and military personnel will be deployed) -- a buildup that clearly plays to Bush's political advantage by keeping terrorist threats at the top of people's minds.
When not deferring to Bush administration officials on the unprecedented security, news teams from outlets such as Time magazine, ABC News and Fox News have been busy hyping terror threats -- leaked by Bush administration officials -- about explosive-filled limousines that could literally crash the inauguration. "Imagine a terrorist plot to gut this entire vehicle except for the front seats, filling the rest with high-grade explosives, enough to bring down a building," intoned ABC's Chris Cuomo (emphasis added).
Playing catch-up, Newsweek's Inauguration Eve cover story this week was equally fawning, insisting that contrary to what readers may have read or suspected, Bush is "hands-on, [is] detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men." He's a commander in chief who "masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes" and who "digs deep into his briefing books."
Meanwhile, U.S. News and World Report's cover theme this week -- again courtesy of Bush aides -- is the president as a big thinker. The Los Angeles Times echoed that premise with the first sentence of a Monday news article, declaring, "As he prepares to launch his second term, President Bush is aiming for nothing less than a legacy that would rank him among America's great presidents."
What? ONE article by ONE guy on ONE site? Wait. It's the same guy that wrote the topic of this thread!!!!! BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!
You're making me laugh. I like that.
one article with SEVERAL examples, and none british. Glad you have a sense of humor, you're gonna need it.
bush "digs deep into his briefing books"? uh, like the presidential daily briefing of august 6, 2001 "bin laden determined to strike in u.s."? the one he totally ignored?
I call it a courtesy, just in case it gets deleted and you wonder why.
You have a great day. :-)
the FACT that I proved my earlier post 100% correct (FD)
Where did that happen?
Really? Your proof is a cut and paste from a blogger who quotes among other things a new york REPRESENTATIVE as proof of the press saying this? And you purposely downplayed the part of Cuban, a REPUBLICAN, saying Bush should set an example? Boy, what a piece of work there. But at least you had the guts to try to post something, unlike your cowardly friend POV who wouldn't know a fact if it hit him upside the head.
Oh, but the article was written by Rich Noyes, the Media Research Centers Research Director, hardly a "blogger". But we're getting off-topic here, don't you think? Ouch. That's number two for you, snoopy.
Speaking of counting, besides the link you provided to a site about alzheimers which had nothing in it about the liberal press dissing bush, if you follow the links you provided back to the source, or just google a few lines, what you get is that one reporter on one show ran a piece wondering if bush should scale back his 2nd inauguration party. That's it, one guy. Hardly an entire press corps as you are suggesting.
Yes, Brent Bozell's lapdog. And that site is about as factually correct as Fox News, which is to say you haven't posted a single fact to support your crap.
Nice one. You complain about how righties are attacked and yet you've been attacking posters since you first started posting here. And sometimes without provocation.
Like I said to steeeeeeeve, pretending something is untrue doesn't make it so. The media are sucking on Obama's appendages like they're full of mother's milk. They are in love with him, and they will NEVER challenge him. Get used to it.
Sure, keep telling yourself that if it'll help you sleep better.
So, you missed the guilt-by-association frenzy, among other things? Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Reverend Pfleger, Antoin Rezko, Rashid Khalidi... Any of those ring any bells?
Obama has been chewed to pieces in the media over what other people did. The media did everything they could to keep him out of the Whitehouse. There's no reason to believe they're going to quit now just because the people have spoken.
I can count on one hand the number of NEWS MEDIA figures that pounded the association issues and Thank God for them, but the majority of them dismissed it or ignored it. Now I'm talking about NEWS MEDIA figures (NOT Limbaugh, Savage, Levin or Coulter They are NOT news media). Go check the covers of Time and Newsweek for the last year and you'll see what I mean.
The proof is on magazine covers?
OK
Oh, excuse me, the covers of TWO magazines.
"Oh, excuse me, the covers of TWO magazines"
I am a German living in Germany and subscriber of almost 30 years of Time magazine. This year I'll discontinue the subscription - I cannot take it anymore the personality cult practiced there (and dont't forget the rest of the MSM as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and all of them).
Facts:
In the last year Obama was on 10 TIME covers (and being on TIME cover means a lot more that the cover itself; it means that the main topic of the issue is that person). After the election there were some issues where he was practically everywhere.
And some more: I know a thing or two about personality cult since I lived it more then 30 years...
Does The New Yorker count?
"I can count on one hand the number of NEWS MEDIA figures that pounded the association issues and Thank God for them"
I seriously doubt that, but go ahead and try.
Oh, and is it the job of "NEWS MEDIA" figures to pound the association issues, or to REPORT them?
Seems like the responsibility for pounding would lie with the right-wing professional liars.
All of the media reported on those associations at one point or another but the fact of the matter is that Americans were concerned about the issues that affected their lives and what the candidates’ positions were and not the “guilt by association” crap. The far right didn’t understand that simple concept and that’s why republicans lost.
FD, the problem is that you are arguing something other than what the point of the article is. You are correct that there was a fair amount of criticism of Bush's second inauguration day. But you are not necessarily correct about the media taking it easy on Obama. Because this article is about the numbers they are using in the stories about Obama's inauguration and the numbers being used in the "liberal" media range somewhere between inaccurate and completely made up. The figures they use do not make him look good, which I think is strange behavior from people so "in the tank" for him.
This is what I hate the most about right wing arguments- the pathological lying. Bush did get much worse press about his inauguration than Obama. A debate could be made whether or not that is bias or due to other factors but that isn't happening because it was so much more important to use false information as back up when it isn't needed.
Great point, but I did explain that my statement wasn't about the actual amount of money. It was about the media reaction, which you apparently agree with me, so thank you. I wasn't bothering with trying to figure out the cost whether privately funded or otherwise. That's futile to begin with. It's entertaining to me to see how the liberals react with such polarity when it's their guy in the headline. I'm in it for the entertainment factor.
I count 12 posts by you here today out of 59. one pretty long one. Nah no evidence that you've got any skin in the game.
In other words, you admit you're trolling just because you choose not to see facts. Good to know.
I'm just going to go through here and flag every single one of your trolling, whiny, ignorant posts.
I don't think they're writing about that because Obama (along with the Democrats) are going to spend a ton of money to help them out. Democrats are not against spending especially if it helps out the American people.
I remember well the reaction four years ago. At the most, it could be described as mild grumbling about the cost. It hardly received a mention in most newspapers and broadcasts. And here's the key: Four years ago that mild grumbling was about an accurate cost.
The cost of the inauguration this year is getting much more attention and coverage, beyond any doubt. The reason could be seen as understandable, when the story is that the cost is almost four times the cost of 2004. Once again, though, the key is all of the current howling is based on bogus numbers.
If this were truly a liberal media in the pocket of Obama, why would the $160 million lie have so much traction? The fact is that it isn't a liberal media; it's a sensationalist media. Therefore, the $160 million lie fits their story criteria. If it were a liberal media, they'd be bending over backward to expose the inaccuracy. This is the only place I've seen that number refuted and explained.
Case closed.
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH...........
Filthy poor people, blacks, gays, immigrants.............in the streets. Being equal. WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't take it......my heart......
Filthy Republican.
Dude, chill out! Crying doesn't solve anything. What's your beef with "filthy poor people, blacks, gays, and immigrants"?
I'm just riffing off your use of the term, "filthy poor."
The only problem I have with anyone in my prior post is filthy Republicans.
I believe all this stuff could be scaled back myself and that is for everyone.
What kind of person says filthy poor? I don't think you were ever a Democrat, we don't think like that it's the Neo-con way of thinking if your not rich you are nothing.
It's the same stare-in-your-face exposure of Al Gore and his exorbitant carbon footprint lifestyle and John Edward's two-faced America that democrats are embarassed by when the media exposes them. The defensive posture by liberal posters is classic. It's better just to relax and let them post a series of "logical explanations" for the apparant hypocrisy and then move in and pick 'em to pieces. A chess game!
Can we please be honest here? The last inauguration was Bush's second one, therefore, maybe not quite as many felt the need to attend that event.
There is a huge difference between then and now. President Elect Barack Obama is the first person of color elected for The President of The United States.
I believe the security of the President and our First Family should be of the utmost importance.
Where is the liberal outrage over the "unprecedented" security? The same people who screamed about Homeland Security and the civil rights are terrorists are strangely quiet today.
That said, we need to do anything and everything it takes to keep people safe for the inaugural activities. Just like our president did for the past seven years, but who gets no credit from liberals.
And...trash FOX all you want, but at least the coverage of the inauguration is a hell of a lot more respectful than MSNBC's snickering and sniveling during Bush's address Thursday night. It was unprofessional at best.
Another point on the comparisons being off, all inaugurations are not equal. Second term inaugurations should be lesser affairs than first term ones, they are merely renewals. It would be more appropriate to compare now to 2001 and 1993 than it is to use 2005 or 1997.
Further the only price tags that matter are the ones being paid for by with tax dollars. If Obama's people are fund raising millions of dollars for their own celbrations, what is the problem? Isn't it one of the mantras of the right that private people should be free to sepnd their money in any way they see fit.
Personally, I see the inaugurations as the one true symbol of how our government really works: one big public spectacle that most of us see from the cheap seats followed by a series of exclusive parties where secret deals are made and insider networks set up.
Bush was not inaugurated during an economic meltdown. However you rationalize it, we could spend $150m more effectively creating jobs, improving infrastructure and in other ways. This is just ostentaciousness at its worse.
All this does make one long for the days of the Truman administration, when Harry & wife walked to the capitol from their former Washington digs.
Faux of course will spin everything without any regard for the facts. They should include dishonesty in their mission statement.
-- However, buried in a recent New York Times article -- Boehlert
Yeah, I get it. You correctly chronicled the faulty financial reporting by the media.
Then you turn around and base your financial reporting on an "unsourced" report from the NYT on the costs of the 2005 gala.
Your outrage collapses at that point...no dice Boehlert.
The NYT's article refferences Ms Linda Douglass as the source.
Why did this figure take so long to surface? Who benifits?
And who'd a thought you might be wrong?
Strange you do post well on occasion I will admit. The dangers of partisanship?
Of course it references Douglas...but it doesn't cite where she got her numbers.
Boehlert is mostly a partisan shill.
She, being a member of the inauguration comittee, might explain her access to the numbers.
There's that word "partisan" again. Still no definition from Ms D. You wanna pick up the slack, or must I remain ignorant to its special significance?
Boehlert seems even toned to me. I must not have the needed sensitivity to detect his shillness.
MSNBC had the 160 million figure on a crawl this morning, so the parroting has commenced.
What no one is pointing out is that Bush spent a hell of a lot of money on an unnecessary repeat performance. Who the hell needs to see another inaugeration ceremony when the man is already president! That's like going to a second wedding ceremony for a couple already married! There's not a passing of the torch, no change in person taking over.
If Bush had class he would've done it LBJ style circa November 1963 in a plane over Iraq.
Of course, you must remember that LBJ's swearing in was done under very different circumstances. I really would like to know the cost of Obamaham's inauguration compared to Lincoln's.
Then how do you explain things such as times when people renew their wedding wovs at golden anniversaries?
Boehlert is now faced with the uncomfortable obligation to criticize Obama if the cost of the inauguration turns out to be more than $40 million, because the poll Boehlert linked to shows that 2/3 of Americans (and 86% of Democrats) want small inaugurations. Even if the 160 figure turns out to be too large, Boehlert now has to pray that the figure goes below $40 million.
"the uncomfortable obligation to criticize Obama."
He has no such obligation, at least, not on any official level. Such is life in a free-speech, free-press America. In your mind, your personal, chest-thumping obligation you impose on him is formidable, but in the realm of reality, it doesn't have any teeth.
I also noticed that Boehlert provided no evidence to back his claim that the cost of Bush's inauguration in 2005 was "$42.3 million". Should Boehlert be held to a different standard, not being required to back up his claims?
The WaPO and Newsmax, both very pro-Bush sources, use 40 & 42 million, as noted in this item. Why do you think they would inflate the number? Wouldn't seem to need any more backup, except for somebody trying very hard to find a problem.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in the preceding post. How is Boehlert responsible for the cost of Obama's inauguration?
The WAPO's news department is a "very pro-Bush source"? That's a very controversial claim. Newsmax is a very pro-Bush source, but:
1) Boehlert did not claim to have obtained his number from Newsmax, and
2) Being pro-someone is not by itself evidence that a figure is correct.
What figure do you think is more accurate for the cost of Bush's inauguration? I'm just trying to figure out where your question is coming from. Do you have another number in mind?
Boehlert rightly slams the reporters who provided faulty information...then he egocentrically claims to know the cost of the 2005 ball...using unsourced info.
Your question is more appropriate to Boehlert than truthseeker.
look up at my solon post, there is a link in there detailing the overall cost of bush's 2nd inaugural.
And then think about the cost of reagan's, nixon's and ford's funerals as well as all the other bush gala's. Those three should have been buried in pauper's graves for all the good they did.
Your question is more appropriate to Boehlert than truthseeker.(Wesley)
Which question are you talking about? I had several.
As I pointed out further up, Boehlert asserted that the cost of the '05 Bush inauguration was $157 million (2nd to last paragraph).
inaugeratuons and conventions , both parties, both cost so much that it is difficult for the average person to fathom--does he really think that that is the issue??
So in other words, just like Bush wasn't held accountable by his base of voters, neither will Obama. Some people in this country can't even afford bread and we are going to spend $100 million on an inauguration? Republicans and Democrats both make me sick.
I'm sure the poor will be as appreciative of your concern as we always are.
I'm with you, Zam. What is the point of spending any money on an inaguration. I'ts all fluff and hollywood. A nice "I will" would suffice for anyone except the "image matters more than substance" crowd and that goes for democrats and republicans. This coronation and red carpet nonsense with Brangelina and the Clooney/Streisand crowd is being shoved down our throats while "billing us later", like I wanna pay for this garbage. The taxpayers are gonna foot the bill for this shindig, 10 million or 150 million. Either figure is way outa line for times like these.
"What is the point of spending any money on an inaguration (sic)."
I'll assume this was a question, and I believe the answer centers around whether or not you want it to be a public event.
If you don't want any public money spent on it, then that pretty much means you have to forbid the public from attending. That will save you the enormous cost associated with security, crowd management, logistics, sanitation, etc. All of these services have to be accounted for and no one provides them for fee.
If you're feeling ripped off by this inauguration (as if you don't feel ripped off already by the Bush Administration and the last 8 years of Congress), then I suggest you try to get some return on your money by attending.
I guess the "return on my money" would be the warm fuzzy I would get by witnessing the event as it happens. It can still be a public event without being a financial extravaganza. You make it sound like if we don't go through with this centra-million dollar spectacle, the process will be suspended and Obama will be dissed. If Obama or any president wishes to turn this economy around, then part of the turnaround would be to suspend excesses like this. Step up, Obama. Set an example for the rest of the world and especially this country and forgo the trappings. You would be lauded by the people who really want change!
"It can still be a public event without being a financial extravaganza."
How big of a public event?
"You make it sound like if we don't go through with this centra-million dollar spectacle, the process will be suspended and Obama will be dissed."
Well, there's still the option of not providing security, logistics, crowd control and sanitation and then still having it open to a crowd of one million people crammed into a small area. Or, you can beg and plead with the businesses and agencies that provide these services to see if they will work for free.
Let me know how that turns out.
I shoulda elaborated on my point. My second marriage was a city hall drivethru style marriage. It cost us less than $100.00. We are still considered married by all accounts. If the inaguration took place in the capitol building, cameras glowing, it is still a public event. I don't know where the notion persists that "public" means outside, exposed to the probability that throngs of on-lookers will amass and create the chaos anxiously awaiting Tuesday. It doesn't have to be that way.
No, actually it can't be a public event without being a financial extravaganza. The vast majority of the costs--well over $100 million (both for Obama and for Bush)--are for security, not for fancy parties. So, if all Obama does is walk up the steps and take the oath, you're still looking at $100+ mil for keeping order for all the people who want to see the event.
And, frankly, I think the value of civic engagement and participatory government is such that it's worth spending money to let our citizens see the most significant ceremony of our democracy (by which I mean any inauguration, not just an inauguration for a president whom I personally support).
I see that Clinton's semen was the biggest problem you had with his second term. You can breathe easy -- it's only Hillary and some Clinton staffers coming back. They won't be bringing Bill's semen with them.
You just lived through the worst presidency ever, and here you are on record preferring it to continue, rather than be merely reminded of moral imperfection.
Do not be angry with them. It is all the current GOP leadership has. Just keep revisiting minor victories from the past and hope that gains 1 or 2 more seats for the minority in 2010. Good luck with that!
You really can't let go of Clinton, can you? And y'all accuse lefties of carrying a grudge forever...
Well, if you're gonna confine the wacks to the facts, snoop, you're not leavin' 'em much to work with. Lord knows the facts ain't doin' them any favors.
I hate to confuse ya with the facts, little fella, but Clinton had managed to get rid of the first Bush/Reagan deficits, the WTC was still standing, New Orleans was in one piece and he hadn't needlessly killed or maimed 50K US Troops along with a few hundred thousand Iraqis or blown a trillion or two by invading the wrong damned country when shrub was installed upon the throne.
The Stock Market was at 10587, we had a record surplus and the National Debt was half of what it is today.
None of those things is true today. None of those things will be true on Tuesday once they finally finish taking out the incompetent WH trash and Obama begins the process of restoring honor, dignity, intelligence and competence to the WH and rebuilding the country shrub has left in the worst it's been in since the gops gave us the Great Depression.
It'll take CSI to get those stains out.
Oh, no! anything but peace and prosperity!!! We can't have a third term of that!
I'll accept a philanderer who can competently run a government over a nice family man who tortures people and runs our nation into the ground.
So while everyone is caught up in their petty partisan bickering on the comments to this story from Eric, we have seemingly forgotten the core point: using the bogus amount of $150M is incorrect when compared against other prez inaugurations because most of that expense is from security services for the millions of citizens coming to see the inauguration.
This story is about the inacuracies of the reporting which are obvious, tilted and glaring.
I think that given the present economic situation of our nation right now, any incoming president, Democrat or Republican, should demand that the inauguration festivities be kept to a secure minimum. Shame on Obama for not doing so!
Par for the course for a Boehlert article.
He doesn't screw up the stuff he says. All that can be argued with is stuff he didn't say.
Bush and the Republicans were ripped for the 2005 inauguration, costing 43 million. Obamas wiil cost 150 million plus. Yet the mainstream media will ignore that.........the double standard has raised its ugly head again. The mainstream media is ready to put a likeness of Obama on Mt. Rushmore. Even before he is sworn in.
Look for "four times Bush's inauguration" to take on the color of truth same as the auto workers' fabled "$73 an hour" did. (Eric Boehlert deftly took that one apart, but how many people saw his piece?) Pretty soon broadcast network anchors are spreading these falsehoods without questioning them.
Jerry Elsea
It certainly doesn't surprise me that this apples to oranges is going around, we do not have real investigating journalist. The 4th wing of the government has died.
This article is unfair to the AP reporter. After excoriating the writer by name in the harshest possible terms, Media Matters essentially comes to the same conclusion as the AP reporter and others, without saying it (perhaps because it damages the thesis.)
The Bush Inaugural cost about $157 million, according to the best estimates and calculatations, which Media Matters reports at the bottom of the story. Is there any reason to believe that the Obama Inaugural would cost less? It looks like the AP reporter is using estimates based on actual facts from the Bush 200 Inaugural, and isn't creating facts.
Yes, Fox News and others should be ashamed for saying the Obama Inaugural costs $100 million more, but the AP reporter - who is owed an apology - seems to have come up with a reasonable estimate for Tuesday's events and cleanup.
There would be no problem for financing the coronation if only Obama would get other dems to pay their taxes! Tim Geithner alone paying his taxes would help pave the way, as long as future 'snafues' are avoided.
Right. Suddenly you want rich people to pay taxes. Make up your mind.
I just think that someone, appointed as this country's TREASURY SECRETARY, should have the synapse in place that reminds them to pay what/when they are supposed to.
But he had another synapse in play, the one that fires, "It's different for me, I'm a democrat!".
Sure thing, buddy, we all know how conservatism addles the brain. Sure seems that you would rather rich folks pay their taxes if they're a Democrat. But whatevs, I think Geitner is a fiscal conservative anyway, a market fundamentalist. Which would explain his penchant for making these accounting errors.
Anyway, Geitner basically sucks and you won't ever put me in a corner by reminding me that some conservative Democrat screwed up. So don't bother trying.
and how many republican business owners getting that republican bailout have their republican tax dollars hid overseas again?
Don't know, but wouldn't it fun to see how wealthy Americans of both parties, seek to hide income overseas in order to avoid their 'patriotic duty'?
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't bring that up. It might be embarrasing.
Right. Hey! We found a bad Democrat who resembles an average Republican! Let's change the subject to him! That'll make the dittoheads forget all about the real story.
It did kinda get off subject but average Republican?
Privatesanders,
I waited for about 150 postings before I 'changed the subject'. Just like when lefties here often try to move away from something that troubles them, like the victory in Iraq that they never imagined or any other good news for the country.
Besides, enough about the cost of the coronation. All Hail the annointed one!
Good news, everybody! If we just imagine a victory in Iraq, we can imagine it was done five and a half years ago!
How exactly is an imaginary victory good news for the country?
If I'm not mistaken, he does pay his taxes.
Yes, and he so voluntarily.... I'm meeting with my tax guy in a few weeks and I'm going to offer my own 'Geithner ' plan. It will allow me to pay my taxes voluntarily, too.......whenever!
Interesting and predicatble. Great comments. Well, not bad.
If we pro-rate the quality of Mr. Obama vs. Mr. Bush, the price tag should be more like $420 million.
1. Obviously a lot of Americans want to see this inauguration, or we would not need to spend money on security or anything else.
2. I have not been on a thread in a long time that gets so bogged down in petty personal stuff between one or two or three people. Frankly, it's a pain in the a** trying to cut through the "o no you did not!" crap to get to the meat of any arguments. Why don't you guys just make your point and move on? Some people appear to have something of substance to say, on both sides, but you are completely burying it in a lot of unnecessary, juvenile namecalling.
Why would they compare the costs of Bush's second inauguration with the costs of Obamas's first inauguration? Isn't that apples and oranges?
bobbob,
But also remember the cost of global warming adding to the coronation's bill in the interim. We have to keep more people warm even as our carbon footprint is heating the earth to the point of record low temperatures throughout the world!
So you are correct, but really they are attempting to compare frozen apples and frozen oranges.
All Hail the annointed one! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
POV and our new friend Former Democrat can't seem to understand why some of us reply with some heat. You and Philboy's post's provide reason for some of that heat.
Rave on. 80P
By the way I've been motorcycling this January in the NW corner of the country. I'm taking it out again today. I've never been able to do this before. This years weather is radical, We've had two 50 or 100 years floods in three years. This is one of many indicators of global warming.
I'm willing to put my decades of experience in risk identification, evaluation, and mediation up against what ever credibility you might claim on the issue.
We had the snowstorm of the Century about 12 years ago. Now, we have the coldest temps in decades. Two years ago, record heat in winter,
I believe this IS called weather, but enjoy the relief that global warming is providing so that you can ride your increasing carbon footprinting motorcycle! (I rather you would pedal instead) Mediate on that!
How many cars get better than 40mpg, and offer an exciting ride? I'm working on a design for a hydrogen powered car. I do need to get back on the peddle power option though. Adequate mediation?
As a further question (I know phil thinks their unfair somehow) or two. Can you compare the things that will happen if I'm wrong on GW versis you being wrong?
Progressives attaining some political power and income. A sustainable energy economy versis?
To paraphrase James Carvelle - its the hypocrisy stupid.
No matter who spins it - the right or the dems and left in this article - the facts are when it was 42 million for Bush the left and the dems condemned Bush - now it is just fine as long as it is a dem and Obama.
No matter how you cut that it is rank hypocrisy.
This article links to a NY Times article regarding the 2005 cost being $115 million, that article now states $15 million, so either they cleaned up their facts recently or this article is trying to grossly skew facts. hmm....
Just four short years ago Eric was complaining that the press didn't include the cost of security in compiling the cost of Bush's second inauguration...
From Salon.com:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration
Seems to me the pot is calling the kettle...
First time post. First, I do not think that anyone should consider an article on this site to be non-partisan. There is always going to be a liberal slant on the point of view. With that said, it troubles me that so much money would be used in something as trivial as an inauguration.
I am generally disturbed by absorbitant public spending to glorify the celebrity worship that occurs regularly in America. I could not care less what Bono, George Clooney, Denzel Washington, or any other “celeb royalty” thinks about politics. This goes for both parties or any politics for that matter. They are just talking heads after all.
This particular inaugural seems overly grandiose with the train tour, the dozen or so parties, the HBO concert in DC, etc. It is no wonder why anyone would question how we could blow this kind of money when faced with the financial situation in hand. That is the biggest sting for me, in Bush’s case, we did not have to face the burdens that now have ahead. Even if the spending numbers for Bush and Obama were even, spending should be more thrifty given the current state of things, especially coming from a President that promised “change” from the previous staff.
It makes you wonder how the press would have handled McCain spending such a large amount on an inaugural. I can’t only assume it would be stories drawinf parrellels with Bush and then equating that to how McCain’s term will be more of the same (another 4 years, etc).
With all that said, America is in for some hard times. To use sports analogies, no matter who is coaching, America is still my team and I always want her to succeed. Sometimes, to get your team out of a rut, you need a pep rally. That is what this is: a giant, very expensive, pep rally.
So in summation, I do not approve of the False Monarchy routine that is being rolled out for our president elect. He is, after all, a public servant. But hopefully this stage will act as a catalyst for generally reposed American people to take action and get involved in this country and it politics and does not turn out to be just a “out-of proportion” victory lap
So what is the cost? Are we to believe MediaMatters does not know?
If the Bush 2005 inaugural cost $155 million, including security, then I suggest applying the Consumer Price Index figures from the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis (since that's where the GOP had their convention). Using this multiplier, the Obama inauguration should cost in the neighborhood of $171 million. $160 million sounds like a bargain to me.
Talk about hypocrisy. You trash an opposing story that doesn't cite it's sources, then cite a favorable NYT article which also does not cite it's sources. You can't have it both ways. On top of that, the MSNBC video is edited beyond recognition. I just hope you can find another line of work when there is no more Bush-bashing available...