jump to navigation

NOTE: The spam filter is being unusually aggressive. If you comment does not immediately appear, it has simply been placed in moderation and I will approve it as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.

"Murphy was an optimist!"

Are you bemoaning the $160 million inauguration? January 18, 2009 9:15 pm

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : Politics, Touchy Subjects, United States
, trackback

Well Bush’s inauguration cost $157 million.

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 [Source, Media Matters, The media myth about the cost of Obama’s inauguration]

Comments after advertisement


1. Missybw - January 18, 2009

Now you know Wingnuts don’t want to hear that… nothing is the same to them. Just like “Bush kept us safe for seven years” leaves out the detail that we were safe for the 200 plus years before that and that Bush ignored all the warnings prior to the attack. Not what they want to hear, ever.

2. LissaKay - January 18, 2009

Oh really? That’s funny, because at the time, back in 2005, the media was bitching and moaning about the costs of Bush’s inauguration being well over $30 – 40 million perhaps as much as $50 million, before the costs of security were added, which were estimated at $16 million.

Did math change somehow in the last 4 years? Because $66 million is a far cry less than $150 million. Obama math certainly is a magical thing, I understand … I am still trying to understand how spending $250,000 to create a job that pays $30,000 a year is going to work out. The same mystical magical stuff that makes unicorns fart rainbows and my electric bills get magically paid, right?

And it’s really funny how history has undergone a radical change as well. Apparently now, history only began in 2001, when Bush took office. That certainly makes it convenient to think that 9/11 was the first and only terrorist attack on US interests, and that Clinton ignored evidence of terrorist activities. It was Clinton’s appointee Jamie Gorelick that enacted policy that kept intelligence agencies from piecing together all the information they had that might have enabled them to stop that attack before it happened. And certainly, if they had the ability to use intelligence gathering techniques such as are now provided for by the Patriot Act they might have been able to take action. And let us not forget that the whole idea and plan to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein was from the CLINTON administration, and the intelligence finding that showed he was planning a weapons of mass destruction program, and was possibly already in possession of one came in under Clinton’s watch as well. The Iraqis that have been spared Saddam’s wood chippers and torture rooms – those folks are grateful that we had a president who was brave and determined enough to put an end to that particular evil.

But of course, let’s not let FACTS get in the way here. Are some liberals just conveniently ignoring those facts, or just LYING … AGAIN to suit their desire to be as hateful as possible?

History will one day show our grandchildren, or perhaps their children, that Bush did more good not only for this country but for the whole world that he was ever given credit for. I fear that, based on his total lack of experience and direction, with a eye more to his own power and glory than the good of the country, that Obama will come very near to destroying this country. The only consolation to that is that as those who voted him in will be standing there going “OMG WTF just happened?” the people that are aware of the dangers in this Obama administration will be prepared and ready for the disaster he will bring.

3. Doug McCaughan - January 19, 2009

The Washington Post January 20, 2005: “The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.”

The New York Times January 5, 2009: “The $24 million [donations-not tax payer dollars] puts Mr. Obama more than halfway toward the goal of raising $40 million to $45 million for what could be the most expensive inauguration ever, topping the $42.3 million that President Bush spent in 2005.”

The New York Times January 5, 2009: “In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.
…only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year…”

Bush did more good? I just don’t see it. I saw a chart that showed his approval ratings by category and showed success in 3 areas, one was Africa. I cannot find the chart now but I did find a list of accomplishments that reflect why I feel Bush was terrible for this country.

4. Missybw - January 19, 2009

Just one quote from the Idiot in Chief that sums up his presidency…

“okay, you’ve covered your butt”

And that, kiddies, is an exact Bush quote when given one of many pre-9/11 briefings the summer of 2001 which contained detailed intelligence about Al Quaeda’s plot to attack us with planes. Intelligence which he ignored. Intelligence he now says he didn’t receive. So who exactly is it that’s lying? I think if you listen to his last month or so of blathering that one becomes obvious. But that rant doesn’t surprise me at all. Feeling the love… and celebrating the inauguration over here!

5. Rich Hailey - January 19, 2009

Missy….link? You know how to do that, right?

6. LissaKay - January 20, 2009

Link? Darling, you should know better than that. That would involve FACT checking and verifying those delusional little Truther rants. Facts have nothing to do with this … it’s a new world now, where Hopey-Changeful Feelin’ the Love means calling the President of the United States childish names (but only if he’s a Republican), mercilessly trashing a state governor and her family simply because she respects the sanctity of life, and slandering total strangers with complete lies* … and that’s just the beginning of the peaceful, loving and tolerant liberal nastiness.

But I did look up the quote … I found it on four Truther rant blogs and in a SlashDot post in which the Truthers were mercilessly mocked. It was simple enough of a task for me, though I understand it can be a challenge to some.

*back up your shit or shut it, mmkay?

7. LissaKay - January 20, 2009

Eric Boehlert seems to have come under the spell of this new magical Obama math … and provides an early glimpse into how the media is going to turn itself inside out glorifying Obama for the very same things, or worse, that they mercilessly castigated Bush for.

8. Doug McCaughan - January 20, 2009

Magical math? It’s not from Eric Boehlert, it’s from the New York Times: Bush, 2005, $42.3m + $115.5m = $157.8 million. It’s simply the cost of an inauguration. People should be aware the president-elect brings roughly $40million in private donations. Your link references Boehlert’s $40-70m figure versus his 2009 $157m figure but never mentions that in 2005 nobody was considering security costs as part of the cost. The 2009 cost includes those security expenses.

Interestingly enough, the inaugural committee has banned donations from corporations, unions and lobbyists and limited donations by individuals to $50,000 which is lower than the $250,000 limit set by Mr. Bush. We will have to see how the final figures work out.

This discussion is silly. There were 2 million people on the mall for the concert. These people are buying souvenirs, food, gas, renting hotels, etc. Saying this is a waste of money or an abuse of funds is like saying that New Orleans wastes money on Mardi Gras and the event should just be canceled. Or perhaps the Super Bowl needs to be done away with. Or the Macy’s Parade.

9. Doug TML (UTK'91) - January 20, 2009

Doug, Doug, Doug. It’s only a “waste of funds” because of the incredible stink raised 4 years ago. Assume that it was nearly the same amount of money for 2005 as this year.

We’re still at war, right? Troops overseas. We are told we’re in the worst economic times in ages. So, how the hell is it “reasonable” now when it wasn’t 4 years ago.

I’m OK with having a party. Big frigging deal. Play the donation limit game, big deal.

Just don’t complain about “the other guys” having a party and then do the same thing!

My point is that if spending all that money was a bad move in 2005, why is it a good move now?


10. Doug McCaughan - January 20, 2009

Unfortunately I didn’t record my thoughts in 2005 but regardless of which party is having The Party, I think it is an important part of the process. I would love to see figures on what spending happens in DC because of the inauguration, but even if DC doesn’t break even, the celebration is an important part of bringing in a new president.

11. Doug TML (UTK'91) - January 21, 2009

I agree. I’m just ticked, though not surprised, that after all the whining last time around, no one is complaining (in the MSM) about this one.