Situational Partisan Inaugural Outrage
Welcome Ace of Spades and Instapundit Readers!!
So eager were left-wing bloggers (and sometimes even their allies in the MSM) to find fault with George W. Bush that they became outraged over actions he took which they would ignore, excuse or even praise if a Democrat (save perhaps Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries) had taken.  (What is it with the left and this need to manufacture outrage against approved targets?)
Remember how outraged Bush critics were just four years ago at the expense of Bush’s inaugural?
The current economic crisis, which some have called the worst since the Great Depression, has not deterred the organizers of Obama’s inaugural festivities from outspending the Bush team four years ago. So much do this year’s festivities cost that the outgoing president has declared an emergency to pay for it so his successor won’t have to spare any expense as he celebrates his swearing-in.
The most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US History? Where’s the outrage? Oh, yeah, it’s a Democrat doing the spending so the standards are different.
UPDATE:Â This year an AP reporter is defending the same extravagence one of her colleagues faulted four years ago.
44 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
$150 Million would pay for 7500 scholarships for underprivileged youth to attend the exclusive private school in Chicago where the Obama’s sent their precious little daughters. (Apparently, the Chicago Public Schools — then under the management of Obama’s Education Secretary nominee — weren’t good enough.)
It would also buy out 500 subprime mortgages, or put Lindsey Lohan in rehab for 416 years.
Any of which would be a better use than throwing a coronation party that would give Leni Riefenstahl the dry heaves.
Comment by V the K — January 15, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - January 15, 2009
We’ll spend our way out of this, right Obama?
Comment by Nick — January 15, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - January 15, 2009
The hypocrisy on the part of both the MSM and their Dhimmicrat allies is astounding as always.
Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites all.
I’m pulling for a conservative GOP Hill in 2010.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 15, 2009 @ 2:36 pm - January 15, 2009
<blockquoteWhat is it with the left and this need to manufacture outrage against approved targets?I thought it was called, The Two Minutes’ Hate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 15, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - January 15, 2009
Try again.
I thought it was called, The Two Minutes’ Hate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 15, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - January 15, 2009
This is why I hate being liberal. I have the beliefs but I DETEST the double standards. I guess it works for us because everyone thinks with Dems in the office they think they’re going to get something (usu for nothing) out of Uncle Sam. I know this sounds weird coming out of a card carrying Lib. But it is simply wrong.
Comment by Rachel — January 15, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - January 15, 2009
v the k – It would also… put Lindsey Lohan in rehab for 416 years.
SOLD!!!
Comment by Rachel — January 15, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - January 15, 2009
Hey, you could call the outrage over Bush’s inaugural cost (and lack of it over Obama’s) Situational Partisan Inaugural Temper Effusion. – SPITE
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 15, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - January 15, 2009
I give up. Liberals are officially 5 year old children.
The hypocrisy on every issue is mind boggling. All it comes down to is:
It’s all about me!!
So when Republicans behave like adults and do what’s right for the country – they get pilloried and despised.
When they have the slightest infraction -it is the worst crime on earth.
When they celebrate an inauguration or a special birthday for our country – it is an awful waste of money.
But when the Dems are in control – all bets are off and all of these things are to be celebrated, feted and money must be spent and wasted.
I am hoping the Obama is a decent president, because we American deserve that, but it is going to be a very hard 4 years.
On a similar note, Israel can do nothing right ever – on the other hand Hamas – murderous killers of Palestinian men, women and children – are celebrated at every turn.
As Dennis Prager says: we are living in bizzaro world.
Comment by Leah — January 15, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - January 15, 2009
That’s refreshing to hear.
It sounds more than weird, it sounds incompatible with liberalism, certainly incompatible with Obama and the current Democrats in congress. They are counting on delivering 50% +1 of the population something for nothing. It is their strategy for a permanent majority.
Sounds like you have an inner conservative screaming to get out.
Comment by American Elephant — January 15, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - January 15, 2009
I agree with GPW’s original post, the hypocrisy is outrageous. But, Bush declared the emergency because of the sheer numbers of people expected to flood the city. It’s a safety issue, not a going away gift to the next administration. It’s not helping the Obama folks throw a bigger party unless you’re saying that because they won’t have to spend money on security. The people are going to come, period. Party or not, it makes no difference, they just want to be there. Personally I can’t understand why but whatever.
#10
Sounds like you are unable to comprehend that not everyone is locked into a narrow way of thinking and can see the negative behavior of people they generally agree with. It’s called being a rational, civilized human being. Believe it or not, that’s how most liberals AND most conservatives are. It’s only the fanatic few who turn it into a battle between good and evil. The country will survive their garbage and they can slither away to the nearest rock and hide under until the next opportunity to spew their poison arrives.
Comment by a different Dave — January 15, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - January 15, 2009
Dave,
Were you dropped on your head as a child? (on purpose perhaps?)
Rachael, the self-avowed liberal, was the first to acknowledge how incompatible with mainline liberal thinking her statement was. She was correct, and I am simply agreeing with her. You, on the other hand, are an imbecile.
Really? I’d accuse you of reading that somewhere, but I suspect bathroom walls are the closest you get to literature. But it certainly doesn’t come from first-hand knowledge in any case.
In other words, you’ll be back tomorrow.
Comment by American Elephant — January 16, 2009 @ 12:11 am - January 16, 2009
I’m abstaining from company [late] christmas party, in part to save my company money.
Comment by djr — January 16, 2009 @ 7:19 am - January 16, 2009
Dave,
I thought W was an incompetent racist (see: Katrina). Why would he care about the safety of millions of brown people on Inauguration Weekend? It’s totally incompatible with his racist DNA. Heck, I’m surprised he doesn’t bring back “Brownie” to run the show.
Comment by rastajenk — January 16, 2009 @ 7:58 am - January 16, 2009
“Change You Can Believe In”? No SOS (Same Old S//T)
Don’t you dare disapprove of my acts
Or try to confuse me with facts
When they’re pointed out
A Lib’ral will pout
And then squall as he overacts
….nnnn..’o.o’..uu!u….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum
Comment by algie — January 16, 2009 @ 8:44 am - January 16, 2009
I’ll consider the inaugural money well-spent if Obama can top James Brown’s “Please Please Please” routine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5aVhLjT7UE
(starts about 2:00 in)
Comment by MarkJ — January 16, 2009 @ 9:54 am - January 16, 2009
LOL
Like you’d know.
Translation: There is no good or evil, only shades of gray. What’s happening in the country has no moral import. Which means there is nothing evil about what Bush and the Democrats are doing today: running trillion dollar deficits. socializing more and more of America, etc., following policies that will make America a Latin American hell-hole over time. Which means: Leftism wins. Shut up and take it.
I daresay that the above attitude is, in itself, evil. Now ADD, you can get ANGRY and let your standard uncivilized name-spewing commence.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 10:26 am - January 16, 2009
“Rachael, the self-avowed liberal, was the first to acknowledge how incompatible with mainline liberal thinking her statement was.”
Thank you AE, and that proves my point. And, your infantile response also does. Luckily as I said, you don’t represent the mainstream of conservative thinking.
ILC, if you want name calling you need only read AE’s comments. As far as your usual insane take on what I said, you went wrong immediately after the word translation. The remainder of your comments aren’t even remotely related to my use of the words good and evil. I’m not angry, it’s the same you always do, and if it makes you happy then go for it.
Comment by a different Dave — January 16, 2009 @ 11:25 am - January 16, 2009
Speaking of liberal outrage, where is the outrage from the left over the makeup of Obama´s Cabinet apointees? In GWB´s first term he appointed more African Americans than any previous president of either party and Latinos, except for Linda Chavez all were without blemish. It was more rainbow than Obama´s. His one Afican American, Holder, is flawed, and Hilda Solis sends a bad message to business. I don´t hear the left wanting a more respentative Cabinet. If Bush had only one appointee they´d be calling it a token.
Comment by Roberto — January 16, 2009 @ 11:57 am - January 16, 2009
[...] cold chicken and pound cake at a “brief” inaugural ceremony are not batting an eye at Obama’s “most expensive ever” inaugural while we’re in economic straits or (in their words) “a depression.” You know, the [...]
Pingback by Thank you, President Bush - UPDATED | The Anchoress — January 16, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - January 16, 2009
I hope they do some more digging through Sarah Palin’s receipts and Joe the Plumber’s tax records. Subtle, ain’t they?
Comment by Jim Treacher — January 16, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - January 16, 2009
I’m all for him having his party but yeah, it’s good to note the double standard. I do remember to complaining about both of Bush’s.
Comment by Thomass — January 16, 2009 @ 12:40 pm - January 16, 2009
Translation: I hit a nerve. Truth hurts.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - January 16, 2009
P.S. And yes ADD, it is your insults and anger that give you away. As for whatever you have going with AE: Sorry, I didn’t realize you needed me to deal with him for you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - January 16, 2009
Actually, it doesnt do anything of the sort. But no one ever accused you of being logical.
I think its some sort of masochistic crush. He loves getting beaten up.
Comment by American Elephant — January 16, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - January 16, 2009
heh
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 2:19 pm - January 16, 2009
I don’t think it’s so much manufactured outrage at the cost of the second Bush inauguration as much as it was manufactured outrage against the second Bush term. Let’s face it, in the last eight years the shrill left went far beyond the outer-reaches to manufacture outrage at anything and everything they disapproved, while turning a blind eye to the indiscretions of their own kind. SOP.
Comment by Kurt — January 16, 2009 @ 2:44 pm - January 16, 2009
“Inauguration Will Produce 575 MILLION Pounds of CO2!”
- http://thechillingeffect.org/
Comment by malclave — January 16, 2009 @ 2:58 pm - January 16, 2009
“I am hoping the Obama is a decent president, because we American deserve that”
Do we? A majority of the voters elected someone with very dubious associations and no significant experience, on the basis of promises alone. And before that, the trend has been on demanding more and more government services as long as they’re paid for by somebody else.
The likely motivations are not impressive.
Perhaps some of us — those who have resisted this — don’t deserve it. But majority rules and all must pay the price.
Comment by steve — January 16, 2009 @ 4:03 pm - January 16, 2009
AE, I said that as a liberal she could still point out negative behavior of other liberals, and that is a good thing. Which is something fanatics such as your self and your counterparts on the left are unable to do.
You in turn said: “Rachael, the self-avowed liberal, was the first to acknowledge how incompatible with mainline liberal thinking her statement was.” And in your original comment you went on to spew about Dems, liberals and Obama. My points one and two.
#23 ILC, you can’t hit a nerve if you aren’t even on the same topic. Reading is fundamental as the old ads used to say. If you can’t understand how I was using good vs. evil it’s insane to go on about something else. The ONLY thing I was referring to is the idiotic belief among fanatics on both sides that they are “good” and the other side is “evil”. Rational people don’t think like that, most people don’t think like that. I knew some robot on here would pull out the “shades of gray” sh%t because that’s what you do,.misread a statement and then babble on about what you thought. You were wrong. If you want to hit a nerve, and I do admit that is quite easy to do with me then at least try to be closer to what I said. Your nonsense no longer angers me because it is a given that you will will do the same old thing just like AE will continue his childish insults.
Comment by a different Dave — January 16, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - January 16, 2009
I understood you exactly, ADD. Read again. Um, before you accuse others of not reading.
Rational people do think in terms of good and evil. It’s irrational (and immoral) not to. You disagree, or want to deny that. I understood you precisely. But, truth hurts so you don’t want to admit it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - January 16, 2009
P.S. And, ADD, you continue to lack courage of your own convictions. It’s rare to come across someone as ‘capable’ of you of first saying, “The sky’s color is in the bad between green and purple” [meaning blue], followed by “I didn’t just say the sky is blue!!! How dare you say that I just said the sky is blue!”
If you don’t understand, ADD, that there is a good “side” in the country’s and the world’s conflicts – namely, the side of HUMAN LIBERTY – and an evil side, namely the side that opposes human liberty in various ways (be it criminal gangs, dictators, totalitarian states, terrorists, or Big Government politicians telling you what to do and stealing from you) – then you don’t understand much.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 8:50 pm - January 16, 2009
(“Rational people do think in terms of good and evil” – in terms of “sides” in the country’s and the world’s conflicts. I have a slightly longer comment on this, caught in spamfilter.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - January 16, 2009
I won’t argue with you, Dan, that in view of the nation’s economic ills some planned activities might have been toned down.
I would like to see a breakdown of costs. The huge Inaugural platform on the west side of the Capitol and the Presidential Reviewing Stand at the White House were designed and the costs pretty much firmed up before the election. The cost would be the same if John McCain were being sworn in.
And I imagine a big chunk of the total cost is for security. That cost has soared as crowd estimates have increased.
I found it amusing, watching C-SPAN, to learn that the crowds expected in the National Mall for activities Monday and Tuesday will require 5,000 port-a-potties, which will have to be regularly “serviced”.
Things have sure changed since the first Inauguration I attended. At age 15 my parents let me travel alone half-way across the country to spend a week in Washington for Dwight Eisenhower’s second Inaugural in January 1957. Security was nothing like it is today. And there were not as many people in Washington for the event. I was able to get into the church when the Eisenhowers attended a special Inaugural service the Sunday before the swearing in and lucked out in getting a bleacher seat for the parade directly across Pennsylvania Avenue from where Ike watched. Pretty heady stuff for a kid too young to shave.
By the way, I think the federal budget that year was less than $100 billion (not including Social Security, which was then a separate account).
Comment by Jack Allen — January 16, 2009 @ 9:50 pm - January 16, 2009
A Differently-Abled Dave,
Got your helmet and bib on? Just checking.
Your typically asinine point was “Rachael criticized liberals, and you agreed with her, that proves you’re a fanatic who cant criticize conservatives.” It is, as is your custom, a logical train-wreck borne of a minuscule, petty and child-like mind. One does not follow from the other.
Furthermore, your asinine non-point is risible in light of the fact that Rachael, the liberal, and I, the conservative, are reaching a point of agreement while you are nipping at our heels failing miserably in your attempts at fanatical partisan “gotcha”.
I <3 irony.
Comment by American Elephant — January 16, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - January 16, 2009
What fraction of that cost is due to direct or indirect security costs?
Will the declared emergency allow for better security? If so, maybe the purpose of the cost was to allow the emergency to be declared.
Comment by njcommuter — January 17, 2009 @ 11:03 am - January 17, 2009
Wrong again ILC. Typical ideologue behavior though, it’s not what someone says that matters it’s what you want them to say so you can then counter and feel superior. Pretty much the same intellectual/emotional level as the forced outrage about Bush which is also totally mirrored in the continuous whine about Obama. Enough time wasted….
Comment by a different Dave — January 17, 2009 @ 11:48 am - January 17, 2009
#37 Does that mean you’re going to leave, again?
Comment by The Livewire — January 17, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - January 17, 2009
Livewire – heh
So folks, now that ADD is gone in accordance with his 9,999th self-righteous promise to go, let’s review. I made the following central point:
ADD functionally rejected that analysis. Oh, he didn’t address it directly. But he ignored it, while spewing other snide venom at its speaker. Functionally, that’s a rejection of the analysis or position – just a cowardly one.
Now, whom does it serve? I spoke a truth. Which side is indirectly (but nonetheless) aided by ADD’s rejection of the dichotomy I pointed out? Hint: The evil side. The side that works against human liberty. The side that needs people to ignore or deny its existence.
ADD, if you do ever come back – and of course, I really know with 100% certainty that you will, because of your insincerity and your dependency on what you imagine to be your audience here – then the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand has an essay that she wrote just for you. Cheers!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - January 17, 2009
#38 No, it didn’t mean I was leaving again
it meant that I had better things to do at that moment.
ILC, the “side” you are describing is NEITHER liberal or conservative but includes some from both ends of the political spectrum and anywhere in the middle. If you agree to that then what you said is rational and true. IF you were making yet one more lame attack on liberals, then you are among the fanatics on the right who are NOT rational and who are a threat to the USA. Since the “sides” I was speaking of are liberal at one end and conservative at the other, your statements had no connection to mine and your accusations of denial, rejection blah blah blah were/are just characteristic pompous hot air.
Comment by a different Dave — January 17, 2009 @ 11:07 pm - January 17, 2009
No, it’s libertarian-conservative, or “classical liberal”. It only partly includes today’s Big Government conservatives (Bush, who at least managed to be on the side of human liberty in his foreign policy, while destroying it in the sphere of domestic economics). And it doesn’t include today’s leftists or Big Government liberals (Obama-Pelosi-Reid). Today’s left-liberals are essentially fascists who can’t admit it.
Not in the sense you mean. I have supported gay marriage, first-semester abortion rights, and full drug legalization for decades. I am, of course, a ‘fanatic’ about human freedom and everyone should be.
No, let’s review again. I said this:
You, ADD, are unable to agree with the statement… until and unless it is watered down to include today’s “Big Government politicians telling you what to do and stealing from you”, and perhaps worse. I.e., until and unless it is watered down 75% or more of the way to meaninglessness. Like I said, Ayn Rand has an essay for you (see above).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 18, 2009 @ 5:27 am - January 18, 2009
So, to be clear: Classical liberals, or libertarian-conservatives, and those who can support thems, are the good guys. Dictator-appeasing, State-worshiping left-liberals propose to discard or damage human liberty – and thus are, in fact, objectively on the side of evil.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 18, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - January 18, 2009
To be clear – since you are unable to actually respond to what I said and persist in lecturing me based on your imagination I think you’ll do quite well without my input at all. With each comment you just dig deeper into an alternative world where I have said the things you claim. I’m sure that the person in your fantasy is quite impressed with your “wisdom” but I’m just bored.
Comment by a different Dave — January 18, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - January 18, 2009
When I heard how much money was being spent my “outrage” lasted only a few milleseconds. Eh, it IS a big deal after all. Was Bush’s second term a “big deal?” (Well, for ME personally it was, but — historic?)
A lot of people are going to show up and their safety is paramount, so spend the gosh-durned money. Have the Treasury run the presses an extra ten seconds or so to pay for it (they’re soon gonna hafta be runnin’ 24/7 anyway to pay for all of Obama’s promises).
Comment by DoorHold — January 19, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - January 19, 2009