Inauguration, then and now

[alan1]

Here is USA Today's commentary on George Bush' inauguration,
USATODAY.com - Some question inaugural's multi-million price tag

Some question inaugural's multi-million price tag
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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?

• Two hundred Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

• Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

• A down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.

• Two years' salary for the Mets' new center fielder Carlos Beltran, or all of pitcher Randy Johnson's contract extension with the New York Yankees.

A big inauguration and its accompanying costs were considered a given, a historic ceremony with all the pomp, pageantry and celebrations that the nation had come to expect every four years.

But a recent confluence of events — the tsunami natural disaster, Bush's warning about Social Security finances and the $5 billion-a-month price tag for the war in Iraq — have many Americans now wondering why spend the money the second time around.

While the Presidential Inaugural Committee hopes to raise $40 million in private donations for the balls, parades and candlelight dinners for high-roller donors, millions of government dollars will be spent on construction of the platform and stands at the Capitol, police overtime, military personnel and the tightest security for the first post-Sept. 11 inaugural.

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

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent 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," according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

Lawmakers representing the Washington area have complained to the White House about the District of Columbia not getting enough federal help to cover the city's portion of the inaugural security costs, estimated at $17.3 million.

Organizers of the inaugural defended the celebration.

"The inauguration of a United States president is one of America's greatest traditions, a tradition that transcends partisan politics," said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee. "Our theme is celebrating freedom and honoring service."

She cited the Commander in Chief inaugural ball that offers free tickets to service members back from Afghanistan and Iraq and their family members. That ball is one of nine; the other eight require a ticket.

"Every inaugural there's a really good reason given why you should spend whatever donors are sending in on something else," said Rich Galen, a veteran Republican activist, saying many of the complaints come from the losers of the election.

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

Cuban questioned spending all that money on the inaugural.

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

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

Here is USA Today's commentary on Barak Obama's inauguration,
Obama wants an outdoor inauguration despite cold - USATODAY.com

Obama wants an outdoor inauguration despite cold

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama is determined that cold weather won't force the inaugural ceremony and his address inside the Capitol, the lawmaker in charge of the event said Friday.

And the latest weather report for Washington on Tuesday predicts high temperatures in the mid-30s and mostly cloudy skies — far warmer than the 7 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures that forced President Ronald Reagan's 1985 inauguration inside the Rotunda.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the committee that has planned the inauguration, is confident the ceremony will stay outside — and it's Obama's call. With up to 2 million people expected for the event, moving it inside is a last resort.

"He wants it outside," Feinstein said of Obama.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | Barack Obama | Ronald Reagan | District of Columbia | Fahrenheit | John F. Kennedy | D-Calif | Sen. Dianne Feinstein | John Quincy Adams | William Howard Taft | Rotunda | James Monroe

Just in case, the contingency plan for an indoor ceremony is likely for a ceremony in the Rotunda.

In addition to Reagan, weather forced the inaugurations of James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and William Howard Taft inside the Capitol. But John F. Kennedy's inauguration was held outside despite eight inches of snow and a noontime temperature of 22 degrees.

Separately, Feinstein said 1 to 2 million people are expected to make their way to Washington for the swearing in and inaugural parade. But she conceded that the drumbeat of warnings about how difficult it will be to travel into the city may dampen turnout.

The District of Columbia originally projected up to 10,000 charter buses, Feinstein said. But on Friday, D.C. officials said that 2,700 buses have registered for inaugural parking.

Some 240,000 tickets have been issued for the festivities at the Capitol, with 28,000 seats.

Please note that Mr Bush's last inauguration cost approximately $40 million and that Mr Obama's current inauguration will cost approximately $150 million.
Then compare and contrast the two stories about the event published by the same newspaper.
Yes, Virginia, the media is biased.

 

[Alpha1]

I recently explained the meaning of the word hypocrite to a nine year old that was a little confused by it...
I wonder why voting age Democrats can't grasp its meaning and how it so neatly applies to them and their beliefs ..... ???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is USA Today's commentary on George Bush' inauguration,
USATODAY.com - Some question inaugural's multi-million price tag



Here is USA Today's commentary on Barak Obama's inauguration,
Obama wants an outdoor inauguration despite cold - USATODAY.com


Please note that Mr Bush's last inauguration cost approximately $40 million and that Mr Obama's current inauguration will cost approximately $150 million.
Then compare and contrast the two stories about the event published by the same newspaper.
Yes, Virginia, the media is biased.

You'd have a valid argument to make if everyone choose to ignore the historic nature of Obama's Presidency (I am soooo over hearing that phrase, but let us be honest) and the size of the expected crowds.

The spin should be telling, but it's not always so simple: nuance.

If spending a lot of money is bad, is the premise of the Bush Inauguration article, and the cost of the Obama one is ignored then your premise is valid and your argument is credible, but that is only if we keep the context one of cost alone.

see?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I recently explained the meaning of the word hypocrite to a nine year old that was a little confused by it...
I wonder why voting age Democrats can't grasp its meaning and how it so neatly applies to them and their beliefs ..... ???

A 12 year old like you lecturing a 9 year on the meaning of such a complex concept as hypocrisy is hilarious.

where is the hypocrisy?

 

[Avatar4321]

You'd have a valid argument to make if everyone choose to ignore the historic nature of Obama's Presidency (I am soooo over hearing that phrase, but let us be honest) and the size of the expected crowds.

The spin should be telling, but it's not always so simple: nuance.

If spending a lot of money is bad, is the premise of the Bush Inauguration article, and the cost of the Obama one is ignored then your premise is valid and your argument is credible, but that is only if we keep the context one of cost alone.

see?

Of course, Nuance, a nice way to say hypocrisy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All aboard...

Of course, Nuance, a nice way to say hypocrisy.

Sometimes I'm sure it is, but I don't play that game. People with a good skill set of critical thinking tools are able to discern when nuance is credible and valid in any given argument...that is presupposing they are abble and willing to put ideology and emotions aside.

So Avi, what is it? Can you put aside your emotions and ideology or will you forever remain a bozo?

 

[jeffrockit]

You'd have a valid argument to make if everyone choose to ignore the historic nature of Obama's Presidency (I am soooo over hearing that phrase, but let us be honest) and the size of the expected crowds.

Historic (i'm not buying it. Its just another presidential election) or not, it is a slap in the face to hard working people who are struggling in these tough economic times. I can see it being realistically more expensive since it is 8 years later but to cost almost 4 times what the last one was is crazy. There are some big egos at play to over look the economic times for their own accolades.
When this ceremony became bigger than any of the problems this country is going through, it became a joke.

 

[KMAN]

It's the same ole thing... Democrats are perfect and Republicans are killing the country... Although the truth is neither party is perfect the Democrats just choose to kill the country faster than the Republicans.

 

[Ravi]

Bush spent more for less people, so relatively speaking Bush is a money waster.

Sour grapes.

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.Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html?_r=1

 

[jillian]

Here is USA Today's commentary on George Bush' inauguration,
USATODAY.com - Some question inaugural's multi-million price tag



Here is USA Today's commentary on Barak Obama's inauguration,
Obama wants an outdoor inauguration despite cold - USATODAY.com


Please note that Mr Bush's last inauguration cost approximately $40 million and that Mr Obama's current inauguration will cost approximately $150 million.
Then compare and contrast the two stories about the event published by the same newspaper.
Yes, Virginia, the media is biased.

puleeze.... why would you think that someone who got appointed to the office of the presidency by his VP's hunting buddy on the supreme court would ever have gotten the same welcome as someone who got 365 electoral votes.

It would have been biased if they were viewed the same.

Now behave.

 

[alan1]

puleeze.... why would you think that someone who got appointed to the office of the presidency by his VP's hunting buddy on the supreme court would ever have gotten the same welcome as someone who got 365 electoral votes.

It would have been biased if they were viewed the same.

Now behave.

One had 51% of the vote, the other had 53% of the vote.
Tossing out the electoral vote count is a bit misleading, don't you think?
(Note, the link to the Bush inauguration that I posted was for his second term)

 

[del]

he's waaaaay different than any other pol, honest!

"Most Americans here to see President-elect Obama make history crammed onto buses and trains, slept on floors and fought crowds and cold. But the wealthiest Americans coming to see the event are enjoying all the perks their money and power ever warranted.

For CEOs and stars arriving by private jet, local airports have shut down entire runways to serve as parking lots for their planes. Officials are prepared to handle hundreds of private aircraft for the long weekend."

ABC News: On the Money Trail: Inauguration Perks Go To the Rich

way, way, way different.

not.

 

[alan1]

You'd have a valid argument to make if everyone choose to ignore the historic nature of Obama's Presidency (I am soooo over hearing that phrase, but let us be honest) and the size of the expected crowds.

The spin should be telling, but it's not always so simple: nuance.

If spending a lot of money is bad, is the premise of the Bush Inauguration article, and the cost of the Obama one is ignored then your premise is valid and your argument is credible, but that is only if we keep the context one of cost alone.

see?

Evidently, you missed the nuances of the two articles that came from the exact same new source.
Let me dumb it down for you.

The first article talks about how all that inauguration money could be better spent on other things for the country.
The second article doesn't say a single thing about those issues that they thought were so important 4 years ago.

P.S.
We have an inauguration every four years in this country. We have a peaceful transfer of power. I don't get what makes this one so much more "historic". We have the presidency passing from one American politician to another American politician. Just like it does every four to eight years.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You'd have a valid argument to make if everyone choose to ignore the historic nature of Obama's Presidency (I am soooo over hearing that phrase, but let us be honest) and the size of the expected crowds.

Historic (i'm not buying it. Its just another presidential election) or not, it is a slap in the face to hard working people who are struggling in these tough economic times. I can see it being realistically more expensive since it is 8 years later but to cost almost 4 times what the last one was is crazy. There are some big egos at play to over look the economic times for their own accolades.
When this ceremony became bigger than any of the problems this country is going through, it became a joke.

then you sir are just another moron out in the cold who is looking to earn Bozo status on the Bus to Nowhere.

 

[del]

then you sir are just another moron out in the cold who is looking to earn Bozo status on the Bus to Nowhere.

is it my turn to drive yet?

 

[Ravi]

he's waaaaay different than any other pol, honest!

"Most Americans here to see President-elect Obama make history crammed onto buses and trains, slept on floors and fought crowds and cold. But the wealthiest Americans coming to see the event are enjoying all the perks their money and power ever warranted.

For CEOs and stars arriving by private jet, local airports have shut down entire runways to serve as parking lots for their planes. Officials are prepared to handle hundreds of private aircraft for the long weekend."

ABC News: On the Money Trail: Inauguration Perks Go To the Rich

way, way, way different.

not.

Funny to find you coming out against the free markets.

btw, the change is the far right is out of power.

 

[del]

Funny to find you coming out against the free markets.

btw, the change is the far right is out of power.

the far right is no further out of power than it was a year ago, IMO.

but we'll see.

 

[Care4all]

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

so how much was president bush's total cost of his inaugeration festivities, including the close states and dc security costs WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED in the article about president bush's inaugural costs??? Only the 40 million for the ball etc is mentioned???

how can anyone 'compare' anything without apple to apple figures?

 

[Alpha1]

so how much was president bush's total cost of his inaugeration festivities, including the close states and dc security costs WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED in the article about president bush's inaugural costs??? Only the 40 million for the ball etc is mentioned???

how can anyone 'compare' anything without apple to apple figures?

40 mil is TOTAL dear....THE GRAND TOTAL plus maybe the cost of security, not sure about that....

Don't worry, we're gonna hear alot more about this .....

 

[Lycurgus]

You'd have a valid argument to make if everyone choose to ignore the historic nature of Obama's Presidency (I am soooo over hearing that phrase, but let us be honest) and the size of the expected crowds.

The spin should be telling, but it's not always so simple: nuance.

If spending a lot of money is bad, is the premise of the Bush Inauguration article, and the cost of the Obama one is ignored then your premise is valid and your argument is credible, but that is only if we keep the context one of cost alone.

see?

Boy I agree with this. It is about more than just dollars, it is the historic nature of things.

Like facing the largest economic crisis since the depression! The one historic fact which can and will effect each American.

Now if someone really wanted to make a statement, if someone really wanted to be for "Main Street" this 150 million would be turned over to help feed and shelter American's in this very historic economic time!

see?