Four years ago, because of the tsunami in Asia, we were told that George W. Bush’s Inauguration should be a sedate and understated affair since it would be unfair for us to use money for a “coronation” that we could instead have used to send tsunami relief overseas. Oh, and we were also told that the Bush Administration was being “stingy” in sending aid.
This was, of course, ridiculous. But now that we are in a severe recession, one would expect those who called for a sedate affair four years ago to cite financial reasons for having a sedate affair this year.
Alas, one would be disappointed. To be sure, this isn’t the world’s biggest deal with me. But it’s nice to remind ourselves just how hypocritical people can be; many–if not all–of the very same folks who decried an Inauguration extravaganza four years ago are either completely silent this year, or are cheering on the additional spending for Barack Obama’s Inauguration. But then, we all know the reason for that, don’t we?
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
This is a fake controversy
dantes (Diary) Sunday, January 18th at 10:23PM EST (link)Bush spent $42 million on his second ceremony, and Obama is going to spend $45. The $160 number is an estimate of private cost + security, which is probably pretty good since the federal government spent $115 million on security for Bush (which means our last inauguration ceremony cost $157 million).
The hypocrisy of the Democrats isn't, dantes.
Moe Lane (Diary) Monday, January 19th at 8:44AM EST (link)The same people that screamed and ranted and whined about how much Bush spent aren’t saying a word now.
Personally, I’m all for pumping money into the economy, but you’d expect the leaders of the Other Side to at least make some pretense to ethical consistency. And yes, we have to keep calling them on it right off the bat when they don’t. It’s like paper-training a puppy, really.
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
Garth Brooks is killing me
margo Sunday, January 18th at 10:32PM EST (link)The big money doesn’t bother me as much as seeing Garth on that stage.
Seriously... Garth Brooks
Elizabeth Christian (Diary) Monday, January 19th at 1:37AM EST (link)I have been sick the past few days and not really watched too much tv and I have really not wanted to see much of the Obama-mania in the little tv I saw – Garth Brooks – that one is shocking!!!
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
~Benjamin Franklin
Not the Garth you used to know
Cowboy (Diary) Monday, January 19th at 2:17AM EST (link)Last timeI heard him live he was terrible. His vioce is GONE.
Don't care about Garth. I like Tim McGraw, Alan Jackson, and Brad Paisley in descending order.
Rod_Patrick (Diary) Monday, January 19th at 6:42AM EST (link)I hope that these three will stay at home and keep distance from the INTERNATIONAL BARACKO DISASTER SHOW tomorrow.
Tim McGraw is a huge Dem, but may not have supported O.
janis (Diary) Monday, January 19th at 8:35AM EST (link)He has been quoted in the past as thinking that Bill Clinton was the king of presidents, we never had a better one. McGraw has also said that he might want to run for office himself one day. Don’t know Paisley’s political persuasion, but I’m thinking he’s a conservative.