Obama Inauguration As Celebration Of Liberal Hypocrisy

Newsmax has a story entitled, “Obama Inaugural Most Expensive In History,” noting that:

Despite the recession, Barack Obama’s inauguration will be the most expensive ever and could approach $160 million — nearly four times what George Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.

Nearly four times as much as Bush’s inauguration – and this in spite of one of the worst recessions in U.S. history.

The wasteful extravagance, of course, is an issue in and of itself.  When the hell are politicians going to learn not to throw away other peoples’ money on frivolous nonsense?  Don’t we have anything better to spend that kind of money on?  But as much of an issue as Obama’s gold-plated inauguration is, it pales in comparison to the larger – and continuously ongoing – story of the platinum-plated blatant liberal hypocrisy.

The Associated Press tacitly acknowledges the hypocrisy of this pathetic party in it’s own story:

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let’s party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama’s inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

Only four years ago, liberals dripped with self-righteous indignant venom over the Bush inaugural – you know, the one that cost ONE-FOURTH AS MUCH as their guy’s.  John Tierney of the New York Times criticized Bush for throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events.  How dare he celebrate when American troops were at war and children were going hungry in Asia?  The liberal American Progress entitled its piece on the Bush inaugural “Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless,” and vindictively compared Bush’s ball to what FDR spent in 1945.  Paul Harri, writing for the Guardian in New York, entitled his piece, “Bush ‘the king’ blows $50m on coronation: President’s lavish inauguration is ‘obscene’ when US troops are dying in Iraq war, say critics.”  Harri decried the Bush inauguration as “an unashamed celebration of red America’s victory over blue America.”  A blogger writing on the Democratic Underground said in his creative title that “Bush told us to kiss his ASS regarding $40 mil 2004 inauguration.”  And Eric Boehlert of Salon plaintively whined that “Bush’s overblown celebration” wasn’t getting still more criticism.

Are we going to hear this liberal lecture now from liberals now that THEY run everything?  U.S. Troops are still in the field, and dad burn it, those pesky children are still as hungry as ever, aren’t they? Frankly, they should be screaming FOUR TIMES LOUDER, given the cost of the Bush inaugural relative to Obama’s.  I doubt it very much.  Liberals generally lack the ability to think fairly – especially if they happen to wear the title “journalist.”

Are we going to hear about things like the fact that Citibank – which surprise, surprise, is getting another massive government bailout – turns out to be the largest donor to Obama’s inauguration?  Are we going to hear the screeds about Obama being in bed with corporate interests feeding from the trough of the government?  You know we won’t.  We went through the entire campaign hearing the Obama myth – duly reported as “fact” by a sycophantic media – that Obama raised most of his massive funding from small donors.  It was never true.  But the media was too busy digging through every scrap of Sarah Palin’s garbage in Wasila, Alaska to take notice.

Should it matter that Bush raised all the funds necessary to pay for his $40 million (or $50 million, depending on who you ask) ball from private donors, whereas Obama is about to stick the taxpayer with a $125 million bill?  He’s only raised $35 million of the $160 million bill, according to the bottom of that same Newsmax story.  Shouldn’t Obama be decried for his unprincipled chutzpah?  This guy has the largest campaign war chest in history, but he won’t tap into it to pay all the rock bands for his own party?  You won’t hear about that either.  Not from the mainstream media.

As it is, President Bush has declared a state of emergency to free up government money to pay for Obama’s mother of all “overblown” and “unashamed celebrations.”  Apparently ever willing to play the role of scapegoat for vicious liberals, George Bush yet again willingly dons the “kick me” sign for them: you KNOW one day soon Obama will include the very millions that Bush freed up for Obama’s own inaugural in his scathing criticism of Bush’s massive deficit.

Let it be known that to be a liberal is to be a self-righteous hypocrite of massive proportions.  Galling, blatant, mind-blowing hypocrisy – more than any other trait – is the quintessential defining characteristic of liberalism.

19 Responses to “Obama Inauguration As Celebration Of Liberal Hypocrisy”

  1. Coenraad Says:

    Lone Voice in SA

    I have often written in on Blogs to present the favorable side of President Bush [what is a somewhat lone voice in this neck of the woods] and your Blog has posted some. Others [even FoxNews after they boarded the Obamania wagon in June] just did not bother and Time Magazine, well; they remained true to Time Magazine.

    Thus, if this is not altogether out of place in this column, I want to refer to an article that stirred me right down into my small toes, by Eric aka the Tygrrrr Express in his Blog: http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/01/president-george-w-bush-the-final-100-hours/ and I commend this to every American. I want you please to know I concur, ditto and applaud every word and though I am one of the outspoken ones out here we are a good million who share these views. I personally applaud and salute President Bush and his whole family, from his father to everyone else. May the Good Lord care for them and save them for America, AND FOR US THOUGH MANY OUT HERE DON’T WANT TO ADMIT THAT WE NEED THE BUSH FAMILY AND AMERICANS LIKE THEM! And we support Israel as anybody would who is not an utter fool.

    I hope it is OK with Eric the Tygerrrrrr to do this but I am sure he won’t mind.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Coenraad,
    I am sure that Tygerrrrr would be quite happy to know you are helping him get his message out.

    That’s what most bloggers live for, I imagine.

    I have some mixed feelings about President Bush, but the “mix” favors him greatly. I was deeply opposed over his move to essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegals, for instance. But overall, he has governed well.

    His biggest failure was that he refused to respond to his critics. In not doing so, he allowed himself and his agenda to be undermined and defeated. Let me put it this way: your opponents keep saying you are a terrible human being and a terrible president. Then something bad happens, and your opponents are shouting, “We told you so!” And the liberal media picks up on it and adds to the pile-on. What’s the long-term result of this happening over-and-over-and-over?
    Particularly when NO ONE – not even Bush himself – stands up for the Bush presidency?

    President Bush sought to “stay above the fray of partisan politics,” but in failing to deal with his unrelenting critics he failed himself and he failed Republicans.

    I say that as a person who voted for him twice, and as one of the 34% that “approve” of his presidency.

    I’m glad you’re defending him, because he doesn’t deserve most (and nearly all) of the criticism he has received.

  3. Coenraad Says:

    Michael, you are fair, you are gutsy and you are a fighter, and some more. I admire you for all these qualities but I wrote my previous comment from the perspective I see around me at home.

    America’s enemies out here were looking for any stick they could find to hit out at President Bush. They “found” many [in their eyes] but you can’t imagine what they would have done here if the President “had the gall” [that’s what they would have called it] to go on the defense. They have still not stopped on Miss Sarah; they want to destroy her because she represents danger. Like [with?] Time Magazine [you know of my obsession with that Rag] they go on and on in great elation for having someone they “have a reason” to hate.

    So, out here with President Bush remaining the gentleman they had one stick fewer. You know what really made me sick about Michael Moore after 911. He slammed into the President about “just sitting there for seven minutes” with children in some school where they had brought him the news [as if it is a crime for the President of the United States to visit schools] and that “he did nothing for seven minutes” as per Moore. This story was replayed ad nausea in our Media.

    Now, if Moore is correct in his facts that is how I would have preferred my President to react to such horrendous news. You must see what we have here to judge my reaction. I have often concurred with you and on this one there were times I felt like shouting “Mr President, go get them, defend yourself, hit the silly sods” and I was jumping up and down like a maniac, but I now prefer my picture of the Man who remained serene in a crisis because it is not something akin to Africa. And knowing them, I have the added satisfaction that they don’t quite know how to handle a man who can remain serene under attack. I can be cynical when I am prodded, see.

    You are a good Man, Michael. I hope you remain exactly what you are.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Coenraad,
    I hope you recognize that I wasn’t trying to refute/rebut your own support for President Bush in any way. I was merely offering my own take of him. In particular, I wish he’d done a better job communicating his views/policies, and a better job responding to the media lies.

    That depiction of Bush as idiot as he sat looking stunned in front of a group of children is an example of the continuous media destruction campaign to undermine Bush. Had Bush immediately given some order, they would have attacked him for NOT taking some time. There was never any chance of winning with these hyenas. The only thing to do was respond and demonstrate what vicious hyenas they truly were.

  5. Michelle Says:

    “President Bush sought to “stay above the fray of partisan politics,” but in failing to deal with his unrelenting critics he failed himself and he failed Republicans.”

    I think the Republicans failed President Bush. They were so concerned with getting lumped in with him in the hate fest that they left him festering in the sun.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Michelle,
    I have to agree with you. Particularly during the period when the Iraq war started bogging down, Republicans ran from Bush and from supporting the war that they (along with 60% of Democrat Senators) voted for.

    I don’t call myself a “Republican” because Republicans keep putting conservative principles to shame.

    If courage were to become the coin of the realm, we wouldn’t have any money at all (regarding this nation’s politicians – NOT its magnificent soldiers!!!).

  7. Rob_N Says:

    Michael,

    Pres. Bush’s 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million for just the parties (those were covered by private donations) + $115.5 million for security (covered by taxpayers).

    That makes his 2005 Inauguration $157.8 million total, which means it’s nowhere near 4x less than the 2009 version. (Source here, about 20 paragraphs in.)

    NewsMax forgot to include the security costs of Pres. Bush’s Inauguration… even though they did include the estimated security costs for Pres. Obama. They’re either being lazy in their research or they’re intentionally lying about Pres. Obama.

    (The $160 million estimate for Pres. Obama is $45 million for celebrations, also covered by private donations just like Pres. Bush’s, and estimates of $100-115 million for security as noted in plenty of other news articles.)

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    If you’re right – and you really don’t give me any reason to think you ARE right – it wasn’t just Newsmax that made this “error.” I found SEVERAL sources (which is why I say “$40 to $50 million, depending on the source). Nowhere did I see any mention that they included or did not include security. And nowhere do I see mention – even in the source you provide – that Obama’s $160 mil DID include security.

    I’d actually be surprised if security for this event were a trivial hundred million. There were nearly 50,000 security personnel involved.

    You need to realize that there is and has been a massive double-standard going on here. Like her or not, Ann Coulter puts her finger on it:

    It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.

    Here’s a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:

    — The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama’s inauguration today.
    Continued

    — There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.

    — This is an inauguration, not a coronation.

    — Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama’s jewel-toned outfit and somebody else’s glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank’s mare?

    — It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout “Whoopee!” or “Shame!” about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.

    Boy, talk about raining on somebody’s parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30372

    That in addition to the many comments I already enumerated.

    And liberals greeted Bush with the most churlish, rude behavior imaginable:

    This from various locations around the crowd during Inauguration day:




    Sorry if I trust Newsmax and the other sources I came across more than your assertion.

    By all accounts, this was an over-the-top, no-expense-spared gala going on during one of the worst financial crises we’ve seen in a long time. So at best you can argue, “It’s not as bad as you make it sound, even though it’s still really bad.”

  9. Rob_N Says:

    No, Michael, it wasn’t just Newsmax that neglected to cite Pres. Bush’s security costs.

    Traditional media (ie, what you likely consider “liberal media”) has been comparing the total Obama cost to the partial Bush cost as well for the past week.

    Please re-read the Times article I linked to. It very specifically states that Pres. Bush’s 2005 Inaugural balls (the privately-funded parties) cost $42.3 million and that his security and other costs (things like port-a-potties and trash pick-up) cost $115.5 million.

    Add them together and you get a total 2005 Inauguration cost of $157.8 million.

    It’s neither my fault nor yours that our national media is too lazy to make an accurate comparison.

    As for “no-expense-spared” … the 2009 Inauguration featured nearly 2 million attendees. The 2005 Inauguration, at roughly the same cost given inflation, hosted only about 400,000 attendees.

    PS: Conservatives have greeted the Clintons and Obamas with rather churlish and rude behavior for some time now (witness your own quip about Michelle Obama in your response to me).

    These attitudes from both camps are likely why Pres. Obama spoke of setting aside childish things in his speech. This sort of he-said/she-said malarkey doesn’t help move our great country forward.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    I did see the $115 million figure that the article mentions, which does raise the $40 million Bush inaugural cost.

    I didn’t see any figure or statement that claims that Obama’s security has not been included in the cost. But you may be correct.

    I suppose if you can find the conservatives slamming Clinton for the cost of his inaugural, you would have a point for the “Conservatives are just as bad” hypothesis. I await the list of supporting links. Go back to the 1990s and find all the grumblings from Republicans to match what I’ve found from Democrats against Bush’s costs. Given the fact that Ann Coulter cites liberal attacks against Reagan’s inauguration to make the case that they are being hypocrites now – on TOP of the stuff that I found to show the attacks against Bush II, it is unfair of you to cite Coulter’s column the way you do.

    The cost of the inauguration wouldn’t be a big deal to me one way or the other if it wasn’t for the fact that Democrats used the cost of Bush’s (and Reagan’s) inaugurals as an attack weapon.

    I don’t see how you can deny that turnabout ought to be fair play. I am personally sick to my gills of Democrats saying, “It would be immoral for you to treat us the same way we treated you.” And, if you are a Democrat, it is hypocritical to the extreme for you to reprimand me for doing what has been done by your people to my people for years. I frankly don’t give a damn what Obama says, given that the man has long since already demonstrated that he is every bit as hypocritical, two-faced, and cynical as any politician I’ve seen.

  11. Rob_N Says:

    Michael,

    In reading the article I sourced it does say that the estimated total for Obama is $150mil… (“estimated” being the key word). It goes on to also say the estimated cost for the 2009 Inaugural Balls would be $45mil (paid for through private donations).

    But if you compare total to total, you get Obama at $150mil (estimated) and Bush at $157.8mil. (Comparing privately-funded Balls to each other, you get $45mil for Obama’s 10 official Inaugural Balls and $42.3mil for Bush’s 9 official Balls.)

    That was my point…. that the costs are roughly equivalent especially if you factor in things like inflation over the past 4 years as well as the fact that Obama had 10 official Balls instead of Bush’s 9 and there were 2,000,000 or so people in DC in 2009 compared to 400,000 in 2005.

    As for any partisan hypocrisy … I will note that the same group complaining about costs now (conservatives) were defending the costs 4 years ago (or 28 years ago). What goes around comes around, eh? That’s the nature of partisan “turnabout is fair play” spin, but most folks I know (conservative or liberal) are really just tired of all that baloney.

    PS: “your people”, just like “my people”, are all Americans. We were all Americans in 1981 when Reagan was sworn in and in 2005 when Bush was sworn in again and this year, when Obama was sworn in… perhaps that’s why most folks are tired of spin from both sides.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    You’re a nice guy, Rob. You come across as decent and reasonable.

    I doubt very much “conservatives” were out there supporting excessive inaugural costs. We don’t like stupid government spending. I don’t doubt a few Republicans supported Bush against criticism. But why were the Democrats criticizing him in such a partisan manner? And given that they did, why is it wrong for Republicans to take a page from Democrats’ own playbook?

    “Tired of the balony” after winning total control using that self same baloney. Let me punch you repeatedly in the face, and then say – as you get ready to retaliate – “Let us rise above petty violence.” Oh, and when it suits me, I’ll punch you in the face a few more times, and say the same thing when you’re about to hit me back. And on, and on.

    Democrats demonized Bush for eight years. They DEMONIZED him.

    And they were utterly despicable doing it.

    Go through these links and read all the statements from prominent Democrats who fully believe that Iraq and Saddam needed to be dealt with. Realize that 60% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War. And then they traitorously undermined Bush for the next five years with, “Bush lied, people died.”

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

    When the first $700 billion bailout deal went to the House, Nancy Pelosi – the LEADER of the House – came out and put all the blame on Republicans. Instead of trying to work together, she went on the attack. Pelosi blamed the crisis on “right-wing ideology” and on Republicans following a “no regulation” mentality. Which wasn’t even true, as Republicans had TWICE tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie, only to be stymmied by Democrat opposition.

    Don’t you dare presume to act like that for 8 years, and then call upon Republicans to be nice.

    Obama is already announcing his intent to force homosexuality onto the military. He has already announced his intent to end abstinence only education – in spite of the fact that states like Georgia have reduced their teen preg rate by 50% using abstinence. Obama has announced his intention to massively increase abortion with his “Freedom of Choice” legislation. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has changed House rules that have been in place for 100 years to take away Republicans ability to influence legislation or call for a vote to expose embarrassing details or corruption. Like it or not, it’s a war.

    You’re “We’re all Americans. We were all Americans…. when Bush was sworn in” is laughable. Democrats came UNGLUED when he was elected, called his presidency illegitimate, accused him of cheating, and went right at his throat from the very get-go.

    Democrats don’t deserve anything different than what they gave Republicans. They went after Bush for his “excessive” inaugural costs at a time when the economy was FAR better, as I substantially document (and I notice you didn’t show me any links showing how Republicans attacked Clinton during his inaugural). Now it’s our turn.

  13. Rob_N Says:

    My turn for what?

    …You want me to provide links for news from 1992… back when Pine Mail and Mosaic were cutting edge and before Fox News and MSNBC even existed?

    But actually that’s the point behind me reminding you we are indeed all Americans, Michael. Clinton got blasted by the right for 8 years (actually, 16 and counting). Bush got blasted by the left for 8 years, not to mention that the right was also blasting the left that whole time — from the White House on down. Folks on the right were calling me traitor, evil, unAmerican, and so on even though they didn’t even know who I was…

    It’s a hamster-wheel. If you want to continue running on it, be my guest.

    My original point was that the NewsMax article you were relying on contained incorrect info. If you choose not to believe the facts I’ve presented about the Inauguration costs that is your right.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    It won’t be because it’s old that you can’t find it, Rob. It will be because conservative indignation over Clinton’s inaugural costs wasn’t enough to write up. That kind of crap comes from the left. Which is my point.

    I was actually a Republican who DIDN’T “blast” Clinton. I actually got on people who went after him. I said, “Like it or not, he’s our President.” And I will add that Clinton lost his law license for lying under oath. Bush leaves with his personal honor and dignity intact. So I actually reject the comparison.

    It has been the last 8 years of psychopathic liberal hatred of Bush that has caused me to abandon that view. It doesn’t do any good unless both sides are willing to act like grown ups. I already provided you with a bunch of examples proving that Democrats have done no such thing.

    The whole “Bush’s whole presidency was illegitimate,” and “Bush stole the election!” and “Bush lied, people died!” and “General Betray Us?” and “I believe that this war is lost” and “Bush lied us into the war” and “Bush is a war criminal” and on and on and on. And now we have Democrats pushing to prosecute Republicans essentially as war criminals.

    Do you seriously dispute that Democrats went after Republicans to a hysterical degree? Where have you been the last 8 years? I hope you’ve gone to 10,000 leftists sites to broadcast the same message of “let’s all agree to work together” during those years, or you’d be a really big hypocrite. That’s for you to know, as I obviously can’t.

    I recognize that I AM running on “a hamster wheel.” And I pretty much laugh at you because you can’t seem to see that YOU’RE running on it, too. I’m honest about it. I hope you see that I haven’t called you “traitor, evil, unAmerican” etc. And that if anything, that it is YOU implying that I’M “unAmerican” for my “go after Democrats” attitude.

    Democrats taught me how to be politically nasty. And no Democrat is going to shame me from pursuing Democrat tactics now that they are the ones on the chopping block. It’s time for Democrats to learn that when the minority party undermines, and backstabs, and distorts, and blames, and attacks, and uses hysteria as political weapon for years on end, it has a tendency to bring the party in power down. Democrats were so vile that they even used the war as a political weapon to undermine Republicans. They deserve to go down hard for their treachery.

    Maybe tonight I’ll see if I can find stories “correcting” the Newsmax article. I have in about fifty articles found and revealed so many blatant examples of the media being wrong about their facts in a way that served liberals (just use my “media” link to come across them) that it’s about time I came across one that was wrong in a way that favored Republicans. In several of those articles, I link to study after study from universities proving profound liberal media bias.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/Story?id=6665946&page=1

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost

    http://allafrica.com/stories/200901190211.html

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/14/obamas-inauguration-set-t_n_157923.html

    http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1221695

    http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/19/top_stories/doc497425bfcc7aa250391205.txt

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US/At_150m_Obama_inauguration_could_be_most_expensive_ever/articleshow/3985646.cms

    By the way, that is a brief survey of news articles stating that Obama’s inauguration is the most expensive in history. In fact the only article to the contrary came from the Daily Kos and Media Matters on the first three pages. And i don’t drink that Kool-Aid.

    So, your best case is that Obama’s inauguration was still the most expensive ever but not by quite as much as the Newsmax article said. And sorry to tell you, but that doesn’t change anything.

    It certainly doesn’t change the fact – which I document in my article – that the left went after Bush following his inaugural. Nor does it change the fact that – given that reality – your criticizing me for using the left’s own tactic to criticize Obama is hypocritical.

  16. Rob_N Says:

    Two point Michael,

    1. You’re talking in circles. You asked for “links” to news that happened literally before the Internet became a well-known public medium (and even before Fox News, MSNBC, Politico, and a whole slew of current news sources existed).

    When I pointed this out to you … you then said you actually reject the comparison anyway.

    So be it.

    2. You’re also changing the subject. You most recently wrote, “So, your best case is that Obama’s inauguration was still the most expensive ever but not by quite as much as the Newsmax article said.”

    I never claimed it wasn’t the most expensive ever. I simply pointed out that the NewsMax article was wrong — Obama’s Inauguration did not cost 4x more than Bush’s 2005 Inauguration. If anything, after adjusting for inflation, they may end up roughly on par with each other.

    The 2009 event may very well end up being the most expensive. Guess what? The last two inaugurations (Bush 43’s first and second events in 2001 and 2005 respectively) were also “the most expensive ever”.

    Did two Democrats complain about the 2005 Bush festivities and costs? Yes. Just as many, many Republicans are doing now. That’s politics, I get it.

    But even in politics and with all the spin from two Democrats in 2005 and an abundance of Republicans and conservatives this year, there ought to be no refuge for fibbing and that’s why I wrote to point out the facts behind the 2005 and 2009 costs.

    PS — I’ve not seen any information wherein the two Democrats who criticized the 2005 Inaugural costs were commenting on anything other than the actual Inaugural Balls, the privately-funded parties. I have not yet read of any material in which they were criticizing the cost of security for the 2005 events.

    Compare that to this year, in which (given that conservatives are justifiably pointing out that these two Dems criticized the privately-funded 2005 Inaugural Balls) conservative folks actually are criticizing the costs of Obama’s security since they are criticizing the total $150-160mil estimated costs, not just the privately-funded portion of costs.

    To me, unless there is some proof of foul play the security funds are being misused (and there is none whatsoever in this case), it seems highly inappropriate to criticize presidential security costs — no matter which party is in the White House and no matter which group is doing the criticizing. My two cents.

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m not talking in circles. Many newspapers have put pre-internet archives on the internet. You DO know that people wrote before the internet, don’t you? Guess what? I can read the Dead Sea Scrolls on the internet, and they were written like a really long time ago!!! If that isn’t enough, Ann Coulter came up with what liberals said about REAGAN. So you’re still on the hook for what Republicans said about Clinton.

    And you misunderstand which comparison I reject. You equivocated between Republicans went after Clinton, and Democrats going after Bush. Bush didn’t get blow jobs from interns. Bush didn’t lie under oath. Bush didn’t get his law license revoked. Let me tell you something: IF YOU AINT EVEN MORALLY QUALIFIED TO BE A LAWYER, YOU ARE NASTY INDEED. Boy do I ever have a ton of lawyer jokes.

    So you never claimed that Obama’s inauguration wasn’t the most expensive ever (I presume you therefore acknowledge it), and merely claimed that Newsmax was wrong in the extent. Okay. Fine. What I’m saying is, “That really isn’t all that big of a distinction, BECAUSE MY POINT REMAINS INTACT.”

    I allow your posts to stand to offer any needed correction to the Newsmax article.

    Your last paragraphs have merit, so I neither try to refute them or use rhetoric to ridicule them. But I just found – one guy with google and a few minutes what? A good half dozen examples (I’m not looking at the article) of Democrats or liberals going after Bush over his inauguration.

    Rob, like I’ve said before, you strike me as a decent guy (believe me, I get some utterly hateful and deranged comments). You have disagreed with me like a gentleman, and offered principled reasons for your disagreement. I will never delete the comment of anyone who acts and argues as you have.

    I think that ultimately, our disagreement isn’t so much over inaugural costs, but the climate of animosity and blame that characterizes our politics. You don’t like me going after something you perceive – reasonably – as trivial. And you argue that my continuing “the vicious circle of political life” isn’t doing anyone any good.

    For the most part, you are entirely valid in that.

    But I would argue that politics have become a zero-sum game: if Republicans win, Democrats lose; and vice versa. And I would further argue that it was Democrats who both started this modern blood-letting and have taken it to entirely new levels. I go back to the $700 billion bailout, with Republicans coming out and talking about bipartisanship and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer going for every pound of flesh they could grab.

    And I now realize that there was something to “mutually assured destruction.” So let Republicans do unto Obama as Democrats did unto Bush. Let us salt their fields and burn their barns the way Democrats did to Republicans. Let us do everything we can do to undermine Obama and the Democrats in total power the way Democrats did to Bush and Republicans. Tear them down. Destroy them. So that we win and our policies prevail.

    I can’t go as far as liberals. I won’t do the “General Betray us?” thing and tear apart our military’s reputation to undermine Obama and whatever war he gets in the way Democrats did to Bush, and that sort of thing. I can’t make up vicious false lies the way the left did to Sarah Palin. I’m constrained by my own conscience – something these people don’t have. But I will be on Obama and Democrats like a pit bull on a chunk of bloody meat.

    Hopefully, liberals might come to a point where they make a “M.A.D.” agreement with conservatives and we can both cool it down. Until then, I realize that the term, “Borking” – for destroying someone’s character for political gain; and realize that accusing the military of being evil and committing war crimes to undermine Republicans for political gain; etc. came from liberals. And they show no signs of abating.

    And there comes a point, Rob, where if your enemy firebombs your factories, you firebomb his. Or you lose the war. And it’s time for Republicans to learn to fight fire with fire until the Democrats agree to knock it off.

    As it was, their tactics won. They undermined a President, undermined his policies, and undermined his Party.

  18. Rob_N Says:

    Michael writes, “And I now realize that there was something to “mutually assured destruction.” So let Republicans do unto Obama as Democrats did unto Bush. Let us salt their fields and burn their barns the way Democrats did to Republicans. Let us do everything we can do to undermine Obama and the Democrats in total power the way Democrats did to Bush and Republicans. Tear them down. Destroy them.”

    This is already beginning, clearly.

    …And, in reality, if this is what you feel you must do I gladly suggest you please continue to do so.

    Michael adds, “So that we win and our policies prevail.”

    This is where you’re mistaken. Republican (conservative) policies were put in place over the last roughly 8 years. You may think Democrats somehow “undermined” them, but the policies were in fact put in place by a Republican president with the approval of a Republican House and Senate.

    Voters rejected the results of those policies in 2006 and again in 2008. This is why I suggest you continue to salt the fields. Buy out Morton Salt if you have to.

    Enjoy your salty, bloody meat these next few years. ;)

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point in your para “This is where you’re mistaken.” My point is that Democrats were successfully able to undermine Republicans and Bush over the course of 8 bitter years of hard-core demagoguery. And unfortunately, it’s not that hard to do that. I’ve already provided proofs of how the Democrats clearly DID undermine Republican policies in comments above, so I won’t bother to do it again. And in point of fact their negative tactics WORKED over time. Just like they will work for Republicans now if Republican leaders pull their heads out of their rears and start fighting rather than compromising.

    You also forget that we’ve had Republicans as President for most of the last fifty years. 30 years out of the last 41 have been ruled by Republicans. So it’s kind of hard to see this election as a sign that Republicans have been “eternally refuted.” We’ll be back.

    Democrat leader Tom Daschle was calling Bush a “total failure” as early as 2002, even as his claim was followed by the longest sustained job growth rate in history. I hope you’re not trying to argue that Democrats didn’t do EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING that you are now so clearly upset about my advocating Republicans do to Democrats.

    Rather, you are arguing, “The fact that we were nasty to you doesn’t mean you can be nasty to us.” You’re essentially arguing that petty and vindictive politics should be reserved for Democrats, and Democrats alone. And Republicans should lose with the grace and dignity that MY side doesn’t have to have.”

    I am kind of laughing that you on the one hand tell me “I gladly suggest you please continue to do so” even as you have been telling me NOT to do so for most of your posts. I hate to point this out, but your “hypocrite” is showing. But since we both want Republicans to be even harsher and nastier so we can be like the Democrats, I don’t see what the heck you’re arguing about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: