The $50? Million Dollar Inaugeration

ho2 wrote :



my guess is that h02 is "carnac - the magnificient" : all seeing - all knowing .



and enjoy the parade !
hbg

Thank you for the "Carnac the Magnificent" compliment

I do love a good parade... one that I will never forget was the Tobacco Festival parade that occurred in Richmond, VA back in the early/mid 60's.
An all black college marching band was playing the fast paced, high stepping music they were known for, but they transitioned seamlessly into
"Born Free" when they stopped in front of the reviewing stand. Not a dry eye in the house... very moving and real - not the PC BS O boy will soon display.

Please provide a single story from any of those news sources stating the money is coming from corporations.

You have been asked repeatedly and have not done so. I think I know why but prove me wrong.

To shut up whining from a certain member who rarely discusses anything or adds anything constructive to the discussion, but who spends all or most of his time looking for any kind of 'gotcha':

Perhaps it is splitting hairs to say that one bans corporate donations but then takes large donations from corporate executives? Not that it really matters other than the fact that it leaves Obama open to criticism for any future government action that benefits any of those executives or their corporations:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146096981566339.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=6338411&page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/12/31/inaugural-committee-offers-shot-inauguration-tickets/

whining? You were asked about what you posted and you accuse me of whining for questioning you on your "facts" when your facts turn out to be wrong?

CEOs are employees. Employees are NOT corporations.. There are no corporate donations.

If you bothered to read my first post, I made clear that the largest donation being accepted by Obama was $50k in comparision to Bush's $250k.

The WSJ isn't Fox, ABC or CNN. I would like to see your stories from those sources.

I realize you don't like me Fox because I find problems with your arguments and highlight those problems. Frankly, I find that you rarely discuss anything honestly. At least 2 of the items in your original post are false. When it has been pointed out, you ignored it and repeated the claim. Now you want to argue that honesty is splitting hairs. For someone that wants to argue that conservatives don't change meanings to make a point, you sure fail dramatically by changing meanings a lot.

Parados, I don't dislike you. But I am in a good mood and have far too many interesting things going on in my life right now to get into one of these things with you and/or allowing you to further derail the thread, at least with participation from me. So I won't be responding to this line of whin..... er discussion any further. But do have a great day.

Typical intellectual cowardice on your part, nobody is surprised. Just admit that you don't have the info requested.

Cycloptichorn

That's because nobody really wants to descend to the intellectual level you have attained thus far...

Cyclotroll, you have real potential, but your have not yet arrived.

AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend
By Rich Noyes
January 14, 2009

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.

To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece (as recounted in the MRC’s CyberAlert), starting with a lede designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and including the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead:


President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars " $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?



New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."...

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush -- twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the...devastation of the tsunamis," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/01/14/ap-slammed-bush-s-extravagant-inaugural-05-now-it-s-spend-baby-spend

That is a joke, right?

Nope. His byline is definitely on the Newsbusters story and it does look like something he would write. Is there any particular point he makes with which you take exception?

Nah, the whole thing is silly.

The guy's name made me chuckle is all.

That must be another one of your examples of how liberals are attacking Obama for his inauguration.


Oh.. wait, it denies that the AP has written any criticism at all about what you said they criticized.

I may change my cautionary tune - I might love the inauguration, and I've learned more about inauguration donations since I posted. Still, I'm sort of freaked re both security and re the people being very chilled. Hoping for the best weather, haven't looked up the forecast yet. I do get that Obama wants it to be inclusive and uplifting, I think a boost for the country's attitude of hope. On the other hand, I get Foxfyre's analogy to big weddings, we agree on that. On the other hand again, ok, ok, waves first hand back and forth - once in a while I do like them.

Yeah, O boy will spend 3 times the amount of cash GW spent and the press is suspiciously supporting his every move.

That's real change this country can't afford.

WTF?

O boy's priorities are totally out of whack!

He is spending over $150 MILLION on a party for himself and he is going to have a larger armed contingent of people
protecting his skinny ass than the number of US troops currently risking their own asses in dangerous Afghanistan.

Is Washington, DC. that ******* dangerous?

Is this the change O boy has been talking about?
For the sake of this country and the rest of the free world... I hope not.




Inaugural Force Big Enough for War

Largest ever security force in nation's capital will top nearly
40,000 " surpassing even the 31,000 troops in Afghanistan.

The numbers are not necessarily unwarranted given the large number of rightwing whack jobs like you that populate the USA.

GWB never needed any security 'cause he'd only ever appear to a hand selected sycophantic community hall group of butt lickers like you.

[feel free to look up any words you don't know like appear or community].

Barack Obama is the president of all Americans.

Wow.. You just like to show how stupid you really are, don't you H2O.

$50 MILLION my ass!

What a colossal waste of money!