Bio
Publishes Mamalogues® and is a talk radio host. Blogher contributing political editor; also contributes to Mamapop, Imperfect Parent, Momversation, an...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

What Recession: the Most Expensive Inauguration in Our Country's History

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 55
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Alternate title: WWLD? (What Would Lincoln Do?)

It's a passing of the torch, literally in Iran, where they've switched out their Bush effigies and have set fire to new Obama ones. Here, preparations are underway for the most expensive inaugural celebrations in our country's history: the swearing-in of Barack Obama.

Sister Toldjah writes:

I can appreciate a well-planned, well-orchestrated presidential inauguration as much as the next person, but things are getting out of hand and over the top.

Her list of what she deems as out-of-control, Lincoln-obsessed details is impressive, as is Jules Crittenden's list of all things Obamauguration.

The price keeps increasing and today it was reported that while Obama has managed to raise $30 million to cover the costs of the affair, other monies will come from private donors, but the American taxpayer will be picking up the bulk of the tab, $50 million dollars. The gross cost is $150 million dollars when the public and privately-funded balls are factored into the equation.

Wait - aren't we in a recession? Dire economic times? Isn't the environment hurting? I'm just wondering about the flight tabs, gas bills, tickets for trains, buses - not to mention the resources used to get everyone there.

Bush had to declare a state-of-emergency just to appropriate more funds to cover the soaring cost of increased transportation and security.

Wall Street, automakers, and even porn lined up for a bailout, why not the inaugural committee? Perhaps it's all part of the "Spend Our Way Out" economic bailout stimulus plan. Though, oddly, that exact approach was criticized when it was presented as a way to sustain our economy post 9/11, but I digress.

Lizzi at The Bitten Word notes the irony:

See that big red banner up there reflecting an estimated [sic] of our national debt? Yeah, that one.

Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $40 million in comparison, and I am not exaggerating when I say that the media lost their minds over it. Some of the many choice quotes:

“Many have wondered whether, given the war and all of our security challenges right now, it’s appropriate to have a lavish and expensive inaugural celebration?”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Laura Bush in a taped interview shown on the January 20 Good Morning America.


“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?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.


“On
World News Tonight/Sunday,President Bush prepares for his second inauguration. In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?”
— ABC’s Terry Moran on
World News Tonight, January 16.

The Associated Press wasn't to be left out:

The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

Not to be outdone, Salon ballyhooed the security concerns and absolutely tore Bush's inauguration to shreds:

And it might have been helpful in the limited media debate that did take place about the inauguration's costs to point out that if the $40 million to $50 million raised for the GOP's parties had been donated to the war effort, as some have suggested, the money would have covered only about six hours of the U.S. military's operations in Iraq.

Oh, and don't forget ABC's dirty trick:

“For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.”
—Announcement posted on the ABC News Web site on January 19 and captured by blogger John Hinderaker.

Because our media and related criticism are borne of a desire for fairness, I expected nothing short of the same critiques for this, a financially record-breaking inauguration at a time when we're fighting a war on terror, when our economy is sluggish, when Gaza is exploding.

Tuesday's AP headline by Laurie Kellman:

“For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy." [via]

For crying out loud. Journalists are usually such famewhores; they're willing to shortcut their way to super bylinedom by writing some acidic prose on the heinousness of governmental

  • 55
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
mc2writer 5 pts

I just want to point out that a very large percentage of the money spent on the Inauguration went to PAY people and BUY things - money that went directly back into our very damaged economy, and not only in Washington, DC.  Thousands of people were paid to serve, valet, provide security, transport, etc.  Food, flowers, decorations - all that stuff was purchased from businesses and manufactured by someone.  Roadies and entertainers (well, they probably made more than their fair share, but that is the case everywhere), chefs, kitchen staff, electricians, carpenters, contractors - even the city employees who had to remove and reinstall street lamps.  It wasn't like people were just throwing the money at Obama and he was taking it home.  It was, arguably, the most significant transition of power in the history of our country - and was celebrated not just here but around the world.  Nearly every country celebrated the end of the Bush era - that has to say something, yes?

Regardless, lots of people earned lots of money - and that point should not be lost in this politicized argument. 

shessocrafty 5 pts

Ok so how many of you voted for the criminals who finally vacated the White House and tore our country down, who basically turned their head while the economy bottomed out?  Obama has done every single thing that he has said he would do so far.   Geitner is just like everybody else who screws up.  He admitted it and made it up,  and none of us are perfect either so why do we expect perfection in our politicians especially when you aren't even giving them a chance to prove themselves.  How small and judgmental we are.   I understand that people are suffering but things are going to get worse before they get better.  But most people feel like we actually have a fighting chance now, to actually fix it.  I don't put anybody on a pedastal, but I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility to hope things will be different.  See the thing I find funny is that if Barack Obama does half of the things he has said he will do our country will be a much better place and all of the nay sayers will be singing a much different tune.  Things were never gonna change in a week.  So you can hurl around insults all you want but unless you are trying to do something to change it then you really don't have the room or space to complain. 

The door to the american political system has been thrown wide open for everyone to get involved if you don't like something do something about it.  I'm very tired of people complaining just for the sake of complaining and blaming when there is no place for blame.  You can look to the past. become obsessed with the present or look to the future and realize that things can't stay the same and there is no going back there is only moving forward and I'd rather hope and pray that the future becomes better and easier for everyone than complain about people who havent even gotten a chance to do their jobs yet.  Believe me I will blast anyone who screws up in this administration just as quickly and loudly as I did the last one but the one thing thats different is that I don't believe Barack Obama will cover the truth or not admit when he is wrong and I'm pretty sure he will make his administration answer for any missteps.  Thats more than we had before.

predem 5 pts

Well said, ARfarmlady.  I too am continually amazed at the otherwise intelligent people who insist on putting Barrack up on a pedestal!  They seemed to have lost all their objectivity.  You know what happens when you put anyone up on a pedestal?...you give up your personal power. You make that person responsible for your life.  How wise is it to put a politician on a pedestal?  If you all could take the blinders off you would see that in the first week in office, he has repeated demonstrated why we should question our leaders.  They work for us, remember?! How many of you think you could get away with not paying your taxes?  And now we have a criminal running the IRS and Treasury.  Nice pick Pres.

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady

Nofreelunch I apologize for what ever offended you so much from the beginning and also for calling you snob two wrong don't make a right.  You are right I'm a flawed christian. 1 of many flaws the phase chicken dropping.  I know this about myself.  I believe Hate breeds hate. My parents raised me with this belief because being biracial and they thought it was important for my peace of mind when I was face with controversy.   I hope we can get back to what matters and put all this behind us.  Hope to see you on the other side of debates who knows we may agree on some. 

Sincerely Arfarmlady

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady

I'm still amazed at the people who think without a extravagant party we could not remember this Historic Event.  My point  in my post was not a personal attack on the president it was about the state of the economy and change.  When do you start the change, who starts that change that was promised the President or everyone else.  It may be years down the road when people will be saying you know maybe the inaugural celebration should have been televised and everyone stayed home and spent their money in their home state instead of raising the countries debt.  I know the official numbers are not out but the project number 49 million, inaugural 15 million to Columbia, 12 million to Maryland Total rough est. 76 million taxpayers bill.   I do not consider this a small cost compared to the Historical Event, not when just about everyday you hear of someone losing their job.  Guess what if their not working then they can't pay their part of the debt so that leaves less taxpayer.  They probably will have to get government aid because people should not loss their homes because of a layoff their unemployment will not be enough to provide insurance, food and a mortgage payment or rent not to mention a car payment so they can look for a job.  Yes I do believe the world was watching, this economic crisis has touch almost everyone of them.  I wonder what they really thought about us party like we had a money tree.   President Obama has not only been president for 3 days he's been president since he was elected and he started selecting his staff. So yes I do believe he could have taken a hard look at the expenses of the inauguration and stepped forward and  said my fellow Americans I understand the significance of this event to all us but I'm ask you to stay home support your home state and celebrate with me via a televised ceremony while we start our recovery from this economic crisis.  I'm sure he could have said it much better.

travellingaga 5 pts

Firstly I am wandering who decides about the inauguration events? Is it right to blame Obama for spending this amoung of money or maybe someone else had done this decision.

Secondly, I really do think that Americans were expecting the BIG inauguration. After so exciting campaign, where streets were full of people involved, all events were somehow connected to the campaign, and there are even some sympthops of political realignment in US, people wanted to celebrate.

Everyone was feeling that this is something special, tons of people around the world were watching that. Right now when the expectations were fulfill Obama can start his cadency. Just imagine how hard it would be after those expectation wouldn't be fulfil. Imagine the media covarage after the inauguration day...

 http://travelling-aga.blogspot.com

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady

nofreelunch

Wouldn't expect anything different from you.

NOfreelunch 5 pts

I should have just kept my observation about you to myself.  But just because I made the mistake of posting it doesn't mean I'm taking it back. I don't believe you are the persona you're claiming to be. The way you're posting now vs. the way you were posting before confirms it more than ever. May God, Everything Holy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Karma royally kick my ignorant ass and strike me dead with lightning if I'm wrong.

Yep, still standing. And I won't be losing any sleep over my sudden demise. 

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady  Nofreelunch

This is classic example of someone who think their superior to others.

The next time you want to say you are not racist or that you don't discriminate think about what you said about how your education was superior to mine and what I had to say was a waste of time.  Then proceed to call my life a pathetic stereotypical persona and I need to get a life.  I have a life, you snob.  Oh by the way I'm biracial like the President. 

"ARfarmlady is one of the more blatant examples of desperate spoofing that I've ever seen on a message board...and that's saying a lot.  Too bad you have to invent some lame, pathetically stereotypical persona because you can't handle criticism of your party that is spelled correctly and based only on fact, provided by educated, politically informed people. Nice way to use up the vast excess of time you must have on your hands. Get a life."

shessocrafty 5 pts

Where is the outrage about the billions of dollars this country pisses away on a daily basis for uncelebratory reasons like bogus wars, government bailouts for which the government has no clue as to where the money went.  Billions of dollars out the window in tax cuts to people who don't even need it. 

This is part of our governments practices an inauguration every 4 years, and please Barack Obama has stated at several points in his agenda while running for president that he wants to help the regular people not the 200,000 plus crowd.  That excites me more than anything.  Change doesn't happen overnight,  The man has been in office for all of two days.  Give the man a chance.  

the list of over 5000 people who donated 300 dollars or more is found here...

http://www.wral.com/news/political/page/4324089/

Plus Being the media savvy guy that he is Obamas inauguration team also sold rights to concerts to HBO and other syndicates.  And Everyone saw the exclusive ABC inaugural ball coverage.    

The inauguration comittee gets appropriated over a million for the swearing in ceremony and I do believe many preformers preformed for low cost or donated their services.  A majority of the money has and will come from private donations.  Obama has the ability to raise a lot more money than people in the past.  And the government is required to provide money for things like security and bathrooms among other things.  

The tax payers will pay a much smaller portion than past inaugurations. Don't believe the propoganda machine.  The Republicans would and will do anything to shake a finger in the face of the new administration to say how horribly irresponsible.  

At the very least wait until the official numbers come out this is all speculation, attention all Republicans don't forget about Your Sarah Palin out there spending your money shoppin it up at Top shelf department stores.  Really neither side can say much about how money has been spent in the past.  THAT WILL CHANGE.  

People had a right to celebrate.  My family is by no means well off but we have hope that things will get better.   To all of you who lost your jobs I am so very sorry for you and your families, but I think that the day deserved the fitting tribute it got.  What other president in recent memory had a national day of service where thousands of people across the country volounteered their time.  For as much taking as you see it there has and will be ALOT MORE giving back.

predem 5 pts

When one mans interest gets put  before the greater good of the country, it is a failure of  the leader.  Obama had a choice to make to accept all the private donations to gain access to him, have an extravagant celebration that keeps him center stage, while spending millions of tax payer dollars or show up to be who he promoted himself as during the campaign.  I believe he missed a big opportunty to show everyone, especially those who didn't vote for him that it isn't going to be politics as usual. 

I also believe that every inauguration is historic.  We are also in a historic economic situation.  How many more people could have been served by the money that will go to pay for all the excesses for the inauguration. Everyone has a different perspective.  Mine, like that of Msanto, is that of someone who has also been laid off and am wondering where and when will I be able to work again while I watch businesses fold around me.  Being in that position and watching someone piss away millions of dollars that can help stimulate the economy and serve more of who he is there to serve is frustrating and hard to comprehend from someone who spent so much time trying to convince us he was somehow different. 

I want Obama to succeed because I want America to succeed.  He, like many others , as myvoice05 said, are merely the facillitators, there to represent the Nations agenda, not their own.  

purple goddess 5 pts

 As an Australian, I was thrilled with the Inauguration. I made my kids get up at 3am local time to watch it. I told them "This moment, the one you are watching right now, your grandchildren will be learning this as History, and you can say you saw it happen".

Other Aussies I have spoken to about it all agree, spectacle, or not, it has enlivened, invigorated and affirmed our belief that the US is back on track with Obama's election. You guys took a beating, internationally, over the past two Presidential terms. Regardless of how Australia's previous leader was portrayed to you, the vast majority of Australian citizens did not support the "close relationship" we had with Bush and Co.

We hold out such hope for the future, and the Inauguration was part of it.

How can you put a dollar value on that?

www.agoddessinthekitchen.blogspot.com/ ( http://www.agoddessinthekitchen.blogspot.com/ )

MSanto 5 pts

Personally, I don't care what Bush's inauguration costs were, or whether or not security was included or not included.  To me, this is not the issue. The issue for me is, as nofreelunch pointed out..... in today's economy, President Obama would have been respected more, in my opinion, if he had put his money where his mouth is, and "To protect, serve, and set an example for the people he claims to care about the most". I voted for President Obama, and I wish him well, but there are those of us that resent the unnecessary excesses when people are losing their homes, jobs, savings, etc.

In December, I became one of the victims of this terrible economy when I lost my job.  Today, I spent several hours at a reemployment center where we were told that due to budget cuts, the unemployment office in our county, which used to have a staff of several people, has been cut to only one.  The phone lines and the website were never designed to handle the volume of calls and correspondence they are currently receiving so are a complete disaster, and we were warned not to do "anything" that might jeopardize our claims, because it could take weeks to straighten out. 

In light of all this, can anyone blame me for being a little resentful of the money that was spent on yesterdays events, in spite of the fact that I feel it was a very special day?

shessocrafty 5 pts

Ok Now I live in the DC metro area and I did vote for Obama, but putting that aside I would like to say I think your whole argument is bullocks.  DC has been hit just as hard as many localities in terms of budget shortfalls and any money appropriated by the government for the inauguration is for this purpose.  Believe me DC has covered security for all manner of events that happened in the city before so the contributions for the inauguration were well deserved and necessary. 

Now as far as the whole inauguration spectacle as you have painted it I would like to say that isn't it time that the government actually became accessible again?  What is the problem with actually inviting people to participate in one of our countries only true shows of governmental pagentry.  Did you know that the White House tour was basically cut off at the knees during the Bush years?    It was one of my fondest memories as a kid getting to go and see the WHITE HOUSE. Obama has said that he will change this to allow people more access and I am glad he will.  

If Obama was the first Black Republican president I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. There is always something to complain about when the shoe is on the other foot. And I don't even remember Bushes inaugurations neither one or two. But I will never forget yesterday.  

The moment was magical and it was inspiring.  That is what you should be talking about, how many people were inspired by the sense community that Obama has formed and is still forming.  Realizing that a president appreciates his place in history and the signifigance and wants everyone to participate in the government in whatever way they can.  This is our government afterall and it was nice to see a president embrace the public not push them away.  In contrast for many years we always heard "I" from our leaders now we are hearing "WE".

History will not forget yesterday and I think its tawdry at best to guess about the cost, yes we are in a recession and money is tight for millions of families but for one moment yesterday we were all united by a man whose plans though grand to some will make a difference in this world.  Instead of complaining about the cost whose true amount remains to be seen, how bout remarking about the truly amazing part of seeing millions of americans actually engaged in this country's history and hoping for the future?  When was the last time you heard singing in the streets of DC?  When was the last time you saw people actually smiling and saying hi to you for no reason (in dc this is sometimes a rare thing).  THIS IS HISTORY FOLKS you can't put a price tag on history.   Regardless of wether you agree with the price tag, you must say that looking back on our long storied history that this is a joyful and proud moment that needed to be celebrated.  This is no NERO on a fiddle while rome is burning  (I think you could say that about bush though at several different points of time).  It's a day that your kids will talk about the day where we finally started to unite as a country and if this is the only thing you have to complain about, then I guess so far he's doing his job pretty good then huh?  

And another thing not to make this about race, but I'm a mixed race person who grew up in Virginia where things like OREO were yelled at me at regular intervals growing up,  the man validated an entire generation of kids cultural identity and really it means alot to me for a person of this background at this time to be running this country not just for me but for my children and everyone's children. So yes I wanted a party a big one because he legitamized the fact that I have always believed that race isn't a barrier to anyone for anything.  The man sees his place in history, both how far we have come and how far we have to go.  Just the fact that an entire generation of Civil rights activists from the 50s and 60s got to see this moment is amazing.  Don't you think that is something to celebrate and pat ourselves on the back for regardless of wether or not you agree with his politics.  

Mamalogues 5 pts

In total awe of nofreelunch, ARfarmlady, Jane, myvoice05, joethemom, msanto, Jonniker, and predem. Gena - thanks for your thoughtful input. Regardless of our disagreement, you bring a lot to the table.

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady

Feeling the love.  Got to love freedom of speech.  Can't say I care for personal insults or downright rudeness.       "provided by educated, politically informed people. Nice way to use up the vast excess of time you must have on your hands. Get a life."

Manners please:       crit·i·cize  criticized  criticizing  criticism  (all spelled correct)

1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate ( http://www.blogher.com/evaluate )

2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of ( http://www.blogher.com/popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?critic08.wav=criticize') )

MyVoice05 5 pts

This administration is about change, so far I do not see any, it is business as usual for us all. 

First - the government and our elected officials are still spending the money, that I work hard to earn, to promote, reward or "bail out" those who do not need my money as much as I do.  Today was a extremely moving, and memorable day that was a long time coming and will always be so, regardless of the price tag that will eventually be assigned to it. It would have been just as extrodinary for those who were moved by it, however, without the extravagant price tag.  I do agree that whatever funds were needed to ensure the safety of not only President Obama and his family, but also those coming to witness this historic event needed to be spent; however, if I read the previous posts correctly, that was an estimated 75mm this still leaves an additional amount of apprx. 75mm or more that is not earmarked for security and such, which is still almost double the 40mm that was spent on Dubya's second term celebrations, which were harshly and justly criticized as excessive. 

Second - The media bias continues, as is so elequently described by Momalogues, the same outrage and editorials should be voiced at the extravagance of these celebrations that were voiced with Dubya's.  We should have one set of standards to judge all and these should not be changed simply because the person has changed - isn't this why we oppose discrimintation?!? 

Third and most disturbing for me - we, as a nation, have not come together.  Until we can put aside our personal issues and focus on what we have in common and what we all have to gain by this thought process, we will remain mired down in the disgusting muck that is today's political process,based on keeping the public divided instead of united. Whether we wanted Barack Obama to win or not, the fact is that he is now our President and we, as a nation, have a responsibility to our children and to all those who have sacrificed to make this nation great to put aside our petty differences and come together in agreement that our personal feelings and opinions are not greater than the needs of our nation and it's citizens.  We are responsible for each other regardless of skin color, ancestry, sexual orrientation, income (or lack of), education level, social standing, etc. This means discrimination and name calling must cease, all discrimination, color based (yes, even discrimination against white people), economic based (yes, even against rich people), education based (yes, even against those highly educated), religion based (yes, even against Christians), etc.  We sometimes seem to think that it is okay to be biased against some as long as it is not against those we perceive as more persecuted or less socially accepted, this should never be the case, bias is bias and it is ALWAYS wrong regardless.  We need to stop with the petty name calling and personal attacks that I have seen in some of the posts in this stream, and if we are going to debate, stick to the facts and recognize that a persons dignity is more important than your "winning the debate" because if it is not, then we all loose.

Change has to start within, one man cannot change our nation (for the good or the bad), it is going to take everybody. 

Gena Haskett 6 pts

This is irksome and I should let this go but the ignorance thing is like itching powder to me. It is one thing to not to have reliable information. It is another to revel in falsehoods that may prove your point if it is true. Either way that can be fixed.

The Center for Responsive Politics runs the Open Secrets web site. It is non-partisan, non-profit organization. The PIC openly gave the information via their website. I know it is had to believe but get use to it, the word is transparency.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/01/no-logos-b... and http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/inaug.php?cycle=...

The final tally will be given in 90 days to the Federal Election Committee, it is mandated that they do so.  So until that time all you have, unless you have verifiable documentation that you can produce is speculation.

In other words, until the NY Daily News cites it sources like a real newspaper you ain't got jack to hate one. If you can produce viable source based information more power to you.

I have no problem with it, the true is the truth and not a partisan wet dream.

One more thing. It is understood that the PIC must reimburse the Secretary of Defense for services rendered during the event. It is law. Specifically this section of the  law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/2553.notes.h...

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

NOfreelunch 5 pts

ARfarmlady is one of the more blatant examples of desperate spoofing that I've ever seen on a message board...and that's saying a lot.  Too bad you have to invent some lame, pathetically stereotypical persona because you can't handle criticism of your party that is spelled correctly and based only on fact, provided by educated, politically informed people. Nice way to use up the vast excess of time you must have on your hands. Get a life.

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady

Tighten your belts its going to be a rough ride:) We're in a Economic Crisis let's hold hands and lead the world.  140-300 million dollar party a great start :(  WOW,WOW,WOW :(  I'll remember it forever. :)

Holy Chicken Dropping who would have guess! :)

legman1 5 pts

1.) I don't believe your projection of $150 million ... what exactly is your source?

2.) You apparently can't add or subtract ... if the total cost (your projection) is $150 million and the tax payers are picking up $50 million, then they are NOT paying the lions share ... private donors are.

3.) I think it is entirely possible that the only reason you think the cost is too high is the color of this particular President's skin and I find that highly offensive (and I'm white)! This IS an historic event .... stop carping, give the man his day in the sun ... he will have nothing but horrific problems to deal with from now on.

predem 5 pts

A lot of good points made.  No real surprise the media bias around this event in light of how they covered the election. The hipocracy is real.  I am extremely disappointed in Obama based on all the rhetoric he spewed during his campaign about being concerned about the middle class, the economy, blah, blah, blah.  I guess the "over the top" spectacle of his speech at the convention in Denver should had been a sign that this guy's ego is huge! Multiple parties, balls, custom limousine! He plays to the desire of the people to have a leader who is concerned more about them but in reality, the big donors and fat cats are the people he surrounds himself with.  Who is sitting up front for the inauguration? 

Yes, certain parts of the country will benefit from having people in hotels, restaurants, etc. But the amount of money that is being spent by the tax payers in order for that to happen, is inappropriate at this time.  I would have thought that the almighty Barrack would have recognized the inappropriateness of spending millions of tax payer dollars when an unprecedented number of people are losing their jobs and their homes, which means they can't pay into the tax rolls.  Just shows he is like all other politicians, he says what he needs to say to get elected.  And the number of otherwise bright people who fell for it is astounding.  They also seemed to forget that the Dems were in control in Congress for the last two years when many of the economic woes have occurred.

Question; wasn't the main point MLK tried to make in his day was that the color of a persons skin shouldn't matter?  Why then, is this such a historic day? Too bad race has become such a part of this. Someone finally points out that Obama is 1/2 white, which I believe makes him the first  bi-racial President, and the response is very defensive.  News flash- he is just a man.  He is not our savior, he hasn't done anything yet except spend more money than anyone ever has on a campaign to get elected, and now the most expensive inauguration.  It appears the only person that matters in this experience is Barrack. Is it really about getting the public involved or him having even more adoration from the masses?  How many of the "public" are attending the parties? Regardless, the American public is picking up a hugh part of the tab.  How do you justify that in light of what is happening in our economy?  I believe if Obama was the person he claimed to be on the campaign trail, he would have recognized the inappropriateness and called for a modest celebration, thereby putting his money where his mouth is.  He is the one who claimed he was all about change.  I guess now it is clear the only change we will see is out of control spending.  Can you really keep the blinders on when the evidence is so clear?

Gena Haskett 6 pts

Ok, I understand that some of you have legitimate issues with the amount of money being spent. These are valid concerns.

Privileged? Yes he is in intellect and the ability to communicate across a diverse nation or at least enough of it to get them to vote for him. Could the money spent on January 20, 2009 feed starving children, heat homes or new books for schools? It could have except that it would not have been.

It was given to corporations to prop up and provide bonuses for unethical business practices that Americans were asked to pay. I didn't like it and I am sure you didn't either but I think that money could have been better spent like you indicated. The prior administration felt it was important to provide golden parachutes to well fed incompetent executives instead. Go figure.

Half-Caucasian and Half-African American. Yes, he is. Does that bother you? How does that tie into spending money and which half caused that to happen?

Male? Appears so to me and a nice looking one at that.

44th President - Yes and there is no dispute about that this time.

Celebrity - yes, this is his day. He is the star of the show called democracy.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

Emtnester 5 pts

5 am on Wednesday morning, when all the bars close and all the dancing is over, we will be left asking ourselves, "could that money have been spent on food for starving children or heat for the homes of the poor or new books in schools?"  The real changes this nation needs simply are not going to be recognized from this priviledged, half-caucasian/half African-American, male, 44th Presidential celebrity. 

Clamo88 5 pts

I hope were not looking at family and friends saying now that money would not have made a difference in your life.  When they're faced with unemployment, foreclosure I open the paper on Sundays and there's 6 pages of foreclosure.  No it might not last very long in war but I've not said spend it on war.  As far as the world is watching yes they are, they see a crisis that is shaking the world and were party like there's no tomorrow. 

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural committee has reached its goal of collecting at least $40 million for next week's festivities.

Figures provided by the committee Wednesday show it has raised at least $41 million. The money will help fund a national community service day, thousands of portable toilets, the installation of 10 giant screens on the national mall for the swearing-in ceremony, and 10 official inaugural balls, among other costs.

I'm not a math teacher but that does not add up to 120-300 million I asked my daughter who teaches high school algebra and calculus.  $2.00 dollars will not balance the OPI budget. 

The inaugural commitee states that they have 49,000,000.00 approved from federal money (taxpayer) for the inaugural ceremony and balls (3)

Maryland Wants $12 Million to Protect Obama

Friday January 16, 2009

In a letter to the star ( http://www.house.gov/list/press/md07_cummings/2008... ) of the inauguration himself, the Maryland congressional delegation has asked President-elect Barak Obama to see to it that the federal government kicks in an additional $12.6 million ( http://www.house.gov/list/press/md07_cummings/2008... ) to help protect him during the 40-minute Amtrak ride through Maryland on the way to the January 20 ceremony. That $12 million train ticket would rival the $15 million already authorized by Congress to assist the District of Columbia with its inauguration-related expenses. Read more... ( http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/218171.htm )

Inauguration Prompts State of Emergency

Thursday January 15, 2009

President Bush declared that “an emergency exists in the District of Columbia ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20... ),” in authorizing federal money ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20... ) to assist the District of Columbia in saving lives and protecting public health and safety during the inauguration of President Barak Obama on January 20. Read more... ( http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/218170.htm )

joethemom 5 pts

How could we ask for less, to inaugurate the people's messiah? Half of Hollywood is there, don't ya know? Have to show them a good party... 

Gena Haskett 6 pts

Seriously. This man ran a presidential campaign that had a surplus of funds after the election. Surplus, not deficit. Almost none of the other candidates can say that.

Now I do agree, if the media hounded Dubya's inaugural committee for spending money on his festivities then the same should be done for the Obama inaugural committee. I just don't want the figures from partisan organizations. I either want it from the GAO or an unimpeachable sources that can be agreed upon by supporters and detractors. I'd want a break out of security costs.

I know the bulk of the money is going to security and crowd management. I'm not willing to cheap out on that expense. I want as many agents as necessary to keep Obama in the car until he takes the oath.

But also let us be fair. There were not 2 million people coming into the city to see Dubya take the oath (Illegal thought it was for him to take it). There is a difference in scale of the population attending that must be factored into account.

Sure we can skimp on the porta-pottys but nobody wants to see what humans will do when they are in dire need. Especially broadcast on CNN.

The parties, yeah, I'd say there are way too many. Guess what? Not all if any are at government expense. The events leading up to it? Because of the proximity to MLK day it is understandable that the two events were connected.

Now if people had wanted Obama to take the oath of office and then have the White House Chef make Chicken sandwiches for everybody and just send them home then ok. I think that is a foolish comparison. It is bad but not at this point 1929-1930 bad.

Are we that broke in spirit that we can't party as a nation for one day? The hard days are here but for one blessed day can we not rejoice in a peaceful transfer of power? Of new beginnings?

You have people from all over the country and the world spending cash money in D.C. Ask the shop, bar and service workers if they are upset about this? They will be tired but I have a feeling they will find a way to deal with it every time the cash register rings.

Ask the hotels, motels and folks renting out couches if they are suffering from too much business?

It is one extraordinary day in our lives. Let us savor it, and not cheapen it, the world is watching.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

Mom101 5 pts

You know, I've got a sigOth in the restaurant industry which is struggling under the burden of the recession. If some event took place in our city that brought in 2million+ people, here to spend money on subways, restaurants, taxis, grooming, parking, souvenirs, camera batteries and who knows what else - not to mention incuring overtime pay for police, fire, and various security forces - we'd be letting out a big freaking holla of happiness. 

Of course the thought has crossed my mind that for the next 4-8 years we won't be needing to hold any more 500,000 strong pro-choice or anti-war marches on Washington. So maybe it all comes out even in the end.

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
( http://coolmompicks.com )

Jane Becker 5 pts

When FDR was sworn in, at the height of the depression, his inaugural committee served cold chicken salad for lunch.  And then they went to work.

This $50 mil coronation is an outrage in the face of our economic downturn.  Obama's team would have done better to emulate FDR instead of outspending Bush.

Jane Becker

http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com ( http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com/ )

jfrank0216 5 pts

Don’t get caught up with what the media feeds you. Yes the money for the inauguration is a lot, but no one is saying what the money is going towards, only that it is associated with Obama's inauguration. Remember, people started pouring into DC this past weekend and the inauguration isn’t until tomorrow. That is about 4 days of security and all types of social services. Perhaps, someone should have told the 2 million plus people not to come to Washington, because most of the expenses incurred will be for the people.

No event has ever had this huge number of people in attendance. No, Bush spent half this amount, but just exactly how many came to his two inaugurations?

Most of the budget will be used to cover police protection (including over 4,000 policement from departments around the country), traffic and crowd control, fire protection and inspection, emergency ambulance service, medical services,   cleanup activities before and after the parade, construction of inaugural stands,  securing of manholes and installing and removing poles and cables along the parade route, providing portable water and thousands and thousands of portable toilets, a Command Center to coordinate and monitor activities, as well as security at some 60 streets/highways and bridges that will be closed tomorrow, in addition to monitoring the subway, trains and airports in and around the city.

What is more shameful than the budget is the fact that the new president will be wearing "bullet proof" clothing and must stand behind a bullet proof shield, and he will not be able to walk the parade route as former presidents.

Gr8pillock 5 pts

I agree that if there is a considerable lack of media concern on the subject of extravagant spending during this time when the same media figures are drilling "Recession" fear into the general publics lives, that it is a travesty. Should people question? Yes.

 Having said that, I see the inauguration as less about Obama and more about the people. Would it be so extravagant if millions of people weren't as we speak flocking to the capital to be a part of this, who knows? I do know that I was one of the people who decided, the moment he won, to head to the capital for his inauguration, because I wanted to witness (and shoot pictures of) this moment in history. It felt big. I'm not sure that it is due to the fact that his skin color somehow inspires me (I am white) or that his rise to the office was in great part due to the hard work and dedication of thousands of regular Joe's, walking the streets, knocking on doors, and throwing Obama parties to spread the word. This was a people's campaign and whether or not anyone agrees with that statement, that is how the people who were involved feel about it. The people who are flocking to DC are in large part going because they feel proud to have been inolved, because they feel they had a hand in this election by voting, or volunteering. I don't personally feel it is a party for Obama, it is a party for the people who put him there.

That having been said, I don't recall Bush really inspiring the nation quite that way, especially given the Florida catastrophe when he was first elected, but he still had a lavish party when comparably, nobody was coming.

 Though, I do insist that we question our leaders, research the numbers and make them aware that we are and will always be doing so, my point, I think... if I have one - perhaps the media you quote as railroading Bush for his lavish party for a few are amongst those who also feel drawn to the event due to personal pride, and they don't feel too distressed by the idea of a city preparing for their, and their 2 plus million pals arrival. 

Clamo88 5 pts

ARfarmlady

DEFINITIONS

RECESSION A PERIOD OF REDUCED ACTIVITIES

A STATE OF ECONOMIC DECLINIES, A WIDESPREAD DECLINE IN GDP AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRADE LASTING 6 MONTHS TO 1 YEAR 

WHY IS IT OKAY BECAUSE BUSH, CLINTON, REAGAN, AND SO ON DID BLAH, BLAH ,BLAH.  SOUNDS LIKE MY KIDS WHEN THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THEIR FRIENDS  PARENTS LET THEM.  YOUR SO UNFAIR EVERYONE ELSE GETS TO BLAH, BLAH,BLAH BELIEVE  ME WITH 5 KIDS I'VE HEARD IT ALL.

NOfreelunch 5 pts

Thanks for your response clarifying your point of view, Maria. Although I find it enlightening, I know we just have to agree to disagree on most things political. With regard to this:

"Fox News purports to be an unbiased news outlet. That they are not is problematic in and of itself."

My response would be,

"Well, someone has to cancel out MSNBC! Now if we could just get about five more Fox News-type stations to cancel out CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS, we could be just about breaking even in television media!" :)

Maria Niles 5 pts

NOfreelunch,

Yes, Media Matters is a liberal organization which looks at what they believe to be conservative bias and misinformation in the media. I would read with that in mind just as I would an article from their conservative counterpart, Newsbusters, which seeks to reveal what they believe to be liberal bias. However, having a point of view and a focus on what facts either group digs up does not automatically make them wrong.

Fox News purports to be an unbiased news outlet. That they are not is problematic in and of itself. But that is another argument for another time.

The point I gleaned from the article is not that Bush's inauguration costs were inaccurately reported but that comparisons of the cost of Obama's inauguration to Bush's are apples to oranges because security and other related outside costs were not included in both and at this time the cost of Obama's inauguration are SWAGs at best not actual fact as presented. And some media outlets and analysts, cited by Dana above, are reporting the "outrage" and media bias based, in part, on those numbers.

Observers are certainly entitled to their opinion as to whether or not inauguration ceremonies during wartime either at Bush's 2nd or Obama's upcoming are appropriate. And as I have done nor seen any analysis of media mentions of 2005 vs. 2009 and how favorable or unfavorable they've been I am not arguing that Dana is wrong that there is bias - perhaps there is. Dana is certainly entitled to her belief that the media coverage of the two inaugurations has been biased in favor of Obama. However, my point is that bias can cut both ways and the argument that it is solely biased towards Obama is somewhat undermined to the degree that it is based on widely reported numbers that are not accurate and are actually biased in Bush's favor.

My personal opinion is that it is unrealistic to expect that presidents will not have public inauguration ceremonies wartime or not. Public interest in Obama's ceremony is massive and it is the record number of Americans who wish to participate coupled with the fact that Obama is black and has more death threats than any other president being sworn in that is is driving up the security and incidental costs. I am, however, glad that it is citizens and not lobbyists who are paying for the ceremonies. It is our "lavish" ceremony and I am looking forward to witnessing it and celebrating the occasion.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

Clamo88 5 pts

The most expensive Presidential Inaugural PARTY The most expensive President at a time the USA economy needs the government to practice what they preach, looks like his campaign. The most expensive election.

What has this presidential term cost the American Taxpayers .

100,000.00 remodel

140,000,000.00 (+/-) government funds (taxes)+ city/state funds ( taxes)+private funds

moving expense? ?????

( http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/admMQgXGjnnqfW3b... )

  How many years will it take  the taxpayers to cover this bill it does not include his salary and privileges as president. How many generation will be paying for this historic event.   NO matter what  reason WASTE IS WASTE  How much more can our economy take. No He did not cause the 10,700 trillion dollars deficit, but where's the change.  Want to show me a good financial advisor , they don't spend while telling you to tighten your belt it's going to be a rough ride.

presidential salary 400,000.00 annual presidential  salary  info  ask white house 2008

expense acct. 50,000.00 annual

non- taxable travel 100,000.00 annual

official entertainment 19,000.00annual

free housing ??????

remodel white house 100,000.00

As ex-president Obama  based on what President Bush be paid

3,720,000.00 dollars(186,000.00 x 20 = 3,720,000.00) annual pension based on 20yrs of life ( not allowing for inflation raises) estimates only based on available information for presidents and ex-presidents as of 2008

former 1st lady 20,000.00 dollars annual

undisclosed travel fund ????????????????annual

mailing privileges ????????????annual

Secret service protection for him and family???????????????? annual

office space, staff 150,000.00 dollars, stationery????????????? annual

Transition fee ?????????????

what about that library they all get ???????????

How many president can we support in such a manner? Doing the same thing over and over.

What a eye opener when you look at the numbers, especially when we are expected to cut back and bailout every fat cat that made bad decision and wasted the company profits on perks for themselves and other upper management.  I don't think scaling back would deminish the progress we've made as a nation against ethnic lines, or this Historical Event I would wish it said I meant what promised about waste.

Expenses have gotten out of control, Historical event or not does not  justify Waste and extravagant  in war and economic crisis it  matches the action by CEO's with their hands out for a bailout  from the taxpayer while flying around in their private jet and receiving million dollar perks.

NOfreelunch 5 pts

Maria, you have linked to an article supplied by a liberal organization that states on their website that their sole purpose is "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation...that supports the conservative agenda... in the U.S. media." They're not exactly an objective, non-partisan fact checking service. Isn't that like me linking to Fox News and expecting you to accept that information as the ultimate source?

I read the article. First and most importantly, the only figure that the author is officially disputing here is the cost of Bush's 2005 inaugural ceremony. He's angry because in the past, the media never added in security costs to the quoted cost of any inaugural ceremony, whether it was a Democratic or Republican President. That was just the way the press reported these figures in the past. The most probable reason that any member of the press is reporting security costs now is because we are in such dire financial straits, and also probably to a much lesser extent due to a poll taken in 2005 in which an averaged 66 percent of respondents said they preferred to have scaled down, cheaper inaugural ceremonies in the future. Secondly, he's not even able to dispute the ball park price tag for Obama's inauguration quoted by the Associated Press, MSNBC and others, because he admittedly does not know how they arrived at that figure. According to him, the final price tag of Obama's inauguration including security costs won't be able to be accurately calculated until "months later." According to figures that he's not disputing, the (very incomplete) tab is already at around 120 million dollars. All told with cleanup costs, security costs, costs for emergency medical stations, costs for transportation, port-a-potties and all of the other reported expenses, the 160 and 155 million dollar figures that have been reported in the press are not anywhere near off the mark or improbable guesses. This guy is just bitter because the AP reported that Bush's 2005 inaugural ceremony cost less, which as he himself admits was standard reporting at the time.

So the only numbers that this man can argue are inaccurate are the recently reported cost of Bush's 2005 ceremony. By any reasonable account, Bush's ceremony was expensive, wasteful, and a disgrace in a time of war. But does that do anything to excuse the cost of Obama's ceremony? Not only are we still in a time of war, but we now are in a horrible financial crisis--a financial crisis that Obama made campaign speeches about time after time blaming the right and promising to "change" the irresponsible, lavish, unnecessary government spending and be totally transparent, responsible and accountable. That's Obama's whole mantra, is it not? Change? I'm tempted to call Obama "McSame" instead of McCain. Just because G.W. Bush makes a big, expensive blunder with the cost of his inauguration, does that invite and excuse Obama making an even more expensive mistake with the cost of his inauguration at a time of much greater crisis? That seems to be the point that you and the article you've linked to are making. Correct me if I'm wrong.

fuzeme 5 pts

I voted for Obama, but not for this kind of inaugural stupidity. He claims to be all about change, but this is just more of the same wasteful spending and misguided priorities.

We have countless millions struggling in poverty, without adequate housing, food, or healthcare.

The inauguration should be quick, simple, private, and cheap, not just another excuse to party while those less-fortunate continue to suffer.

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Thank you for that information. Keeping up with fabrication is a headache.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a BlogHer CE, personal blog WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ). Also @ Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite ).

Maria Niles 5 pts

It appears media bias is actually working in Bush's favor as the article that came up with that $160 to $40 million comparison made up numbers and included security costs in Obama's costs and not Bush's.

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 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 media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration" ( http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003 )

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

pulpstress 5 pts

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the anniversary of Lincoln's 200th birthday is not January 20th, it's February 12th.

MSanto 5 pts

Bravo, you really hit the nail on the head!

Mamalogues 5 pts

@writejess, nofreelunch, jonniker, thank you. Fantastic points.

Kate - I'm all for (and have) going after bailouts! Crossing my fingers that more aren't proposed.

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

jonniker 5 pts

I'm generally a centrist, once my positions on all the issues balance out, and I did vote for Obama, and generally like the guy, but I have to agree with Dana on this one. Much of the coverage of that time WAS about the appropriateness of Bush having a "lavish" inaugeration during wartime, although I'll grant that the circumstances surrounding his election were a bit different. And yet I haven't seen much of that kind of talk now, and I wish there would be, as I am a little bothered by the whole thing, frankly.

Separately, I do hope that Obama's actions, both now and during his presidency can be fairly criticized without turning it into a Bush vs. Obama Smackdown or causing his supporters to become rabid defenders of everything he does, which is all I've really seen so far. And I hope the media takes a more balanced approach in doing what they were designed to do, rather than retreating to their corners of perceived bias. And frankly, if he's the man he says he is -- and I think we all hope he is, at least when it comes to integrity and being open-minded -- no one will appreciate it more than he will. 

www.jonniker.com ( http://www.jonniker.com )

aftercancer 5 pts

Sorry ladies but I need to interject a bit of perspective into this conversation.  When W had his first inauguration it was after he lost the popular vote and was placed into office by the Supreme Court.   The second inauguration is historically smaller and this time it was as we were, and frankly continue to be in a war that W chose to start.  At that time the war had already cost 135 BILLION dollars. The turnout at the inaugaration was very low, particularly at the first one where protesters may have equalled the number of those in support. 

To contrast this inauguration is a celebration.  It is being planned on a grand scale because millions of people are expected. Buses from all over the country will be heading up to DC, hotels are full and these people are going to show the world that something good is happening in the United States of America. 

I live in NC and Barack Obama won this state, a feat that I never dreamed was possible. If you want to complain about money being spent then let's go after the wasted TARP funds and the cronyism in contracts and leave this day of celebration as exactly that, A CELEBRATION!

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.blogspot.com 

NOfreelunch 5 pts

BRAVA to Dana, sarahsbluecastle and writejess for their great essay and comments. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I consider myself a bit closer to Libertarian than Republican ideology. Although I generally support Republicans politically, I will be the first to stand up and criticize a Republican position with which I disagree. Or a conservative whom I think is being a jerk or a hypocrite. Brainwashed, uninformed, emotionally immature, easily led or close-minded voters with a blind partisan bias--whether they are liberal or conservative--are contemptible to me. I have 2 journalist friends who are far left in their political stances, yet they have the honesty to admit it (and jokingly giggle about it to my face since it makes me crabby), as well as to admit the vast majority of their colleagues are too. To me, the only person who has any political credibility and actually stands for something is one who is fair and has the integrity and honesty to judge all political parties by the same standards.

I agree with Dana on her media bias position. However I'll go a step further and take issue with the cost of Obama's inaugural ceremony. When Obama was running for President, he made a speech about the economy on October 13th, 2008 in which he laid out bits of his financial plan and said the following:

"I won't pretend this will be easy or come without cost. We'll have to set priorities as never before, and stick to them. ...deferring other things we can afford to do without. It means scouring the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need and making the ones we do work more efficiently and cost less. It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means - from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. ....We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save.... Our long-term future requires that we do what's necessary to scale down our deficits...It's a serious challenge. But we can do it if we act now."

I remember when I heard that, thinking as much as I did not favor Obama as a candidate, I agreed strongly with that part of his speech and respected him for including it. Well, the "now" Obama is referring to in this speech is here. One comment in this thread said that because of Obama's color, not only is a big party called for but a large security force is necessary. All friendly journalistic accounts of Obama's inaugural ceremony explain that the reason so much taxpayer money is going to fund this shindig is because Obama feels the need to make the ceremony so publically accessible. Obama's a smart man. He knows the more "publically accessible" he demands that his celebration is, the more taxpayer funds will be necessary to keep law and order over the large crowds. No one is forcing Obama to have a big, fancy bash celebrating and calling yet more adoring attention to himself. To me, the whole "first black man in office = must have ridiculously expensive and massively attended party" notion is all a crock. No one is blind. Everyone knows he's the first black man in office. Everyone has acknowledged that great achievement and reflected on its meaning. There's been plenty of time for celebration of his election over the holidays, and millions of people did. Everyone who was happy about Obama's election has already celebrated in one way or another. Any person of any political affiliation making the argument that a ridiculously expensive, mostly taxpayer funded celebration thrown by Obama for Obama is not absolutely necessary in these rough times (as per his speech above) is right on the money. I had no legitimate argument with anyone who suggested that George Bush spending $40 million on his ceremony during a time of war was unnecessary. Let's get some historical perspective on inaugural ceremonies by quoting a Democrat, New York Representative Anthony Weiner. Unfortunately Weiner only felt it necessary to speak out a few years ago, when criticizing Bush's 2005 ceremony. Weiner said regarding Franklin D. 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. During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

Now there's a good point! Too bad no one in the mainstream media or government is making it about Obama. I frankly don't care about any politician's skin color or gender, and I never did. Mostly it's liberals that I tend to see hysterically repeating it, as if it should make some sort of key difference or take precedence over his/her political platform. In a (obviously) hypothetical situation, let's say I was the current President Elect and I happened to be the first African American, ¼ Asian, and ¼ Latino President in addition to being a transgendered, gay female. I can honestly say that I'd have enough respect for the citizens of this struggling country to say the following:

"My fellow Americans, thank you for your support. I'm truly moved that I'm the first half black, part Asian and part Latino, gay, transgendered female President. I think this is a great stride forward for our country. However, there's no real need for government heads to declare states of emergency in order to collect funds, put up Greek columns, have the Jonas Brothers sing and Michael Jackson do the moonwalk wearing Vera Wang. Let's just have me take the oath of office in a beautifully decorated space on public access cable so everyone who wants to see it can have the chance, followed by a public-access cable-filmed party with me eating some Porterhouse steak and a nice cake with my advisors and staff-the people who worked to get me elected in the first place. There's no need for all this self-aggrandizing, expensive B.S. when people are unemployed and losing their homes and life savings, much less in a time of war. Hey, by the way--you people who are out of a job and have barely any savings left? Save your gas money, airfare and ticket costs and stay home and look for work."

In other words, this was an absolutely awesome chance for Barack Obama to put taxpayers' and his own money where his mouth is. To practice what he preaches and supposedly stands for so passionately. To protect, serve, and set an example for the people he claims to care about the most. If I was a teacher grading him on putting his words into action in this instance, I'd be forced to give him a D-. And that's being charitable.

writejess 5 pts

Deb, I think that Dana's very point here is that this story is a lifestyle piece about inaugural fashion and not a scathing, or even remotely critical critique about the growing expense of this event. How can you compare apples to apples when there is no fruit in the bin? In an admittedly cursory search for "2009 inauguration cost," I could find no news story that even came close to the criticism in the Bush articles Dana referenced, and at a time when finance is the hottest topic around, the absence is glaring.

I understand the historical significance of this inauguration, but the fact that it is the most expensive one in history is also significant, given current events. That the media doesn't raise its collective eyebrow, even more so.  

shelleyp 5 pts

You made note in your writing about the Lincoln references, and the DC state of emergency. I was responding to your writing.

Obama's race is a factor with both. The fact that the first black man takes office as President on Lincoln's 200th birthday accounts for so many of the Lincoln references.

It's unrealistic to pretend that there is no need for an increased concern about security with our first black president. Especially when the new black president is also very popular.

Increased security comes with a price tag. Most of the money associated with the inaugeration is because of increased security.

I didn't turn this into a "race" issue--I was trying to respond to your writing, and your questioning of the expenses.

I wasn't even aware that your writing was about media bias. I thought it was about inaugeration expenses. 

Deb Rox 5 pts

You can't extrapolate the press coverage from all of the varying social issues and call it bias.  Your premises that all expensive inaugural costs should be criticized and that all inaugurations are the same are both faulty.  The cultural import of our first African American president and the grassroots excitement to attend his inauguration is not at all the same thing as the expenses created for Bush's inauguration.  Since they are so different, you can not compare press coverage and infer bias.

For that matter, you weren't comparing apples and apples in news stories.  The  AP story quoted on Newbusters is a STYLE section article whose first quote is Tim Gunn.  It wasn't meant to offer any criticism or endorsement or acidic prose at all.  It was about dresses.

I'm certain that press bias is evident in lots of cases.  This just isn't one of them. 

 Deb
www.debontherocks.com ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ )blog
www.3smartgirlz.com ( http://www.3smartgirlz.com/ ) consulting