Buzzard Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:18 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:18 AM The Left slanted MSM once again SKEWS the NEWS!! Link AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend By Rich Noyes January 14, 2009 - 13:51 ET Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?” Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost? Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede: So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable? To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must. "This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc. "Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus. And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge. That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:47 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:47 AM How dare you bring this up! We had 8 years of Bush totaltarianism and now we are free and have an agent of change of running the government. He DESERVES a massive bash! What better way to spend my tax dollars than by helping to usher in a new era of peace with Iran and a society where I don't have to pay my bills or my mortgage! Happy times are here again!!! :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravyboy77 Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:20 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:20 PM I remember the Liberal media and the Dems Screeching about Bush spending $40 million on inauguration. It is now estimated at $150 million+ for the Messiahs inauguration yet the Liberal msm nor the Dems have said a word, considering that at least twice a day Obama says that this finacial crisis is the worst since the great depression. :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted January 18, 2009 at 05:21 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 05:21 PM Now let's be fair...when it comes to the coronation of the Messiah, I mean inauguration of a President, money is no object. Especially when it's the taxpayer's (how many of them actually voted for Obama?) money. :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 18, 2009 at 05:27 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 05:27 PM Just read that Obama's is predicted around 150m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossua Posted January 18, 2009 at 08:14 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 08:14 PM I was wondering about the cost when I read about all the musicians booked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted January 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM 150 mil?? Is that all? Chump change for the Immaculate Inauguration of the one who will save us!!The guy is about to 'Abraham Lincoln' me to death. I'm sick of his presidency and he's not even in office yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tech141 Posted January 20, 2009 at 03:14 AM Share Posted January 20, 2009 at 03:14 AM He's an a$$bag... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 20, 2009 at 04:26 AM Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 at 04:26 AM I saw this coming a mile away. This is a guy that has written TWO books about himself and he hasn't DONE anything yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 20, 2009 at 07:00 AM Share Posted January 20, 2009 at 07:00 AM I saw this coming a mile away. This is a guy that has written TWO books about himself and he hasn't DONE anything yet! And those books omit a few years of his life, from what I understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 20, 2009 at 09:18 AM Share Posted January 20, 2009 at 09:18 AM I saw this coming a mile away. This is a guy that has written TWO books about himself and he hasn't DONE anything yet! And those books omit a few years of his life, from what I understand... && surely his birthplace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted January 20, 2009 at 03:05 PM Share Posted January 20, 2009 at 03:05 PM Is there truth to the counter argument that the 150million stated for Obama includes security costs and the 43million for Bush do not and when you factor them out the cost for Obama's is 45million? Also, is it true that this money comes from private donations not taxes? If so, are the donations tracked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravyboy77 Posted January 21, 2009 at 04:31 PM Share Posted January 21, 2009 at 04:31 PM Is there truth to the counter argument that the 150million stated for Obama includes security costs and the 43million for Bush do not and when you factor them out the cost for Obama's is 45million? Also, is it true that this money comes from private donations not taxes? If so, are the donations tracked? It was reported that some of the highest donations came from the same banks that recieved TARP bailout money the most coming from citibank who just recieved another 20 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.