All Aboard: Obama's whistle stop tour has begun

Cybear wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course we wouldn't. We are criticizing the Democrats hypocrisy, not how much they are spending. I know that subtle distinctions are often missed by you given your limited intellect.

So, let's see. You're arguing that a group of people who would defend excessive spending on an inauguration in one year, then criticize it in another year, are hypocrites. Sounds like that applies just as much to you as it does to the democrats, no? You defended in in 2005 (and probably in 2001), you criticize it now - just the reverse of the democrats. If they're hypocrites, so are you.

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
You should try to stop getting your talking points from blathering idiots on the radio.

And instead get your talking points from blathering idiots on blogs?

AP Slammed Bush's 'Extravagant' Inaugural in '05, But Now It's Spend, Baby, Spend
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/...

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled:“The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”
Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?
Nope.“For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede: Story Continues Below Ad &#8595;
So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.
To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece (as recounted in the MRC’s CyberAlert), starting with a lede designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and including the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead: 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.
- A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....
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 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."...

Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.

Fair and balanced wrote:

AP Slammed Bush's 'Extravagant' Inaugural in '05, But Now It's Spend, Baby, Spend

A mere 4 years after vigorously defending George Bush's multi-million dollar second-term inauguration, conservatives are now complaining that the price tag for President-Elect Obama's inauguration - estimated to be similar to Bush's, once accounting for security costs - is to high. Ironically, said a high-level source who asked not to be named, those conservatives are calling liberals "hypocrites" for not criticizing Obama's lavish festivities...when they themselves are at least as guilty of hypocrisy for defending Bush but not Obama. "Isn't that a joke?" said the source. "They feel so bereft at losing the election that they have to lash out at something, and this is the best they can do. If only they'd look in the mirror. Geez."

This Just In wrote:

<quoted text>
A mere 4 years after vigorously defending George Bush's multi-million dollar second-term inauguration, conservatives are now complaining that the price tag for President-Elect Obama's inauguration - estimated to be similar to Bush's, once accounting for security costs - is to high. Ironically, said a high-level source who asked not to be named, those conservatives are calling liberals "hypocrites" for not criticizing Obama's lavish festivities...when they themselves are at least as guilty of hypocrisy for defending Bush but not Obama. "Isn't that a joke?" said the source. "They feel so bereft at losing the election that they have to lash out at something, and this is the best they can do. If only they'd look in the mirror. Geez."

If it was wrong 4 years ago, it's even more wrong today, or did you get your share of the 350 billion bailout?

Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
And instead get your talking points from blathering idiots on blogs?

Actually, no. I don't read the blogs, unless you count a certain libertarian blog(and frankly they're a little nutty). I'm a person who makes up my own mind based on a wide assortment of sources. Sorry to disillusion you. I know you'd like to categorize and dismiss me because I don't agree with whatever agenda you have.

Fair and balanced wrote:

AP Slammed Bush's 'Extravagant' Inaugural in '05, But Now It's Spend, Baby, Spend
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/...
Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled:“The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”
Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?
Nope.“For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede: Story Continues Below Ad &#8595;
So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?
That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.
To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece (as recounted in the MRC’s CyberAlert), starting with a lede designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and including the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead: 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.
- A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....
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 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."...
Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.

Somehow, Red Ryder, you've missed Darwinian's many posts about how the 2005 Bush Inauguration cost more than THREE TIMES what your sources show?

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that cost of security for Bush's 2005 inauguration was about $110million as well, also above and beyond the millions donated for the festivities.

Keep spinning Inian

Let's look at what Mr. Eric Boehlert said 4 years ago, shall we? And this is a direct quote from the SAME person you are quoting from today who has been revealed as the fraud he is:
"For the media, simply reporting on the cost of the inauguration proved to be a challenge. Most major outlets stuck to the lower, albeit still unprecedented, figure of $40 million, which the Presidential Inaugural Committee said it hopes to raise from private donors. But a more accurate figure may be $50 million. That's the amount cited by the Washington Times (which is plugged in to GOP circles). But even that number doesn't take into account the nearly $20 million that's being spent for security, putting the real cost at closer to $70 million, instead of the media's preferred $40 million."

You also say that Tom Ridge cannot even come up with the security costs for Bush' second term inauguration, then in another post quote a NY Times article that put the cost at 110 million.

I am trying to be objective when it comes to this, and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly come back and admit it. You have been chasing the dog's tail on this issue right along with plenty of other staunch libs, but it would seem that Mr. Boehlert can't even keep his lies in order, which doesn't make it any easier for you.

So which way are you going to go on this one Inian?
One thing I am certain of though is that you will not admit your mistake; you will just deflect and carry on your merry way.

Prove me wrong Darwinian

The incriminating link: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/...

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
Somehow, Red Ryder, you've missed Darwinian's many posts about how the 2005 Bush Inauguration cost more than THREE TIMES what your sources show?

Darwinian, along with her quoted Eric Boehlert are wrong Mellers. Mr. Boehlert has a problem keeping his stories straight. Read what he said 4 years ago, then read what he says today.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/...
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/2009011900...
After reading the two distinctly different accounts from Eric, one should pause and decide whether it is just a smoke screen for the off the charts cost of this year’s inauguration.
Looking forward to your response Mellers, right along with Darwinian's.

Here is a more recent article from ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/s...

Let's just say that Bush' inauguration was even close to 150 million Mellers, which it wasn't.
Can you justify spending that kind of money in this economy? For what?
Drop your liberal hat off at the door for a minute and answer that question honestly

even if it did cost the same, which imo it does not, bush was critized for the costs, very little mention for obama, msm is hypocrites.

Hello, Darwinian?, Mellers?, anyone?.
Eric Blowhard(Beohlert) has been proven to dish out missinformation concerning the costs of Bush2 inauguration. Cat got your toungue now?
4 years ago he is quoted as saying the security cost was 20 million, now he is saying 110 Million.
Which is it? I'll bet it was 20 million.

rah rah shis goom bah president barry obema

Sense wrote:

Hello, Darwinian?, Mellers?, anyone?.
Eric Blowhard(Beohlert) has been proven to dish out missinformation concerning the costs of Bush2 inauguration. Cat got your toungue now?
4 years ago he is quoted as saying the security cost was 20 million, now he is saying 110 Million.
Which is it? I'll bet it was 20 million.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the $20million figure was thrown out as a guess back in January of 2005 at a time when the actual figures had not been released. The later quote of $115million came after the actual figures were published.