My first Bush bashing - inauguration costs and DC

[litost]

@Mr. Moto

I just call them like I see them.

I’ll willingly concede that some (not all, surely) posters here would decry the extravagance of a Kerry inauguration. However, I don’t think for a second you’d here that complaint echoed by the general media.

I don’t recall any outcry over the Clinton inaugurals, nor did I complain myself.

Two things before we arrive at an opinion on how the media is reporting this:

(1) Did Clinton ask DC to pay the bill and divert the money from what was set apart for anti-terrorism efforts? This is the biggest point that Bob Scheiffer makes.

(2) Was the US fighting a war overseas with a 1000+ casualties on their side with tens of thousands of civilians dead?

[Squink]

@JohnBckWLD

I don’t recall the mayors of Boston or NYC complaining about local expenditures during this summer’s conventions (BS fests)…quite the opposite in fact.

There were some complaints from high places:
New York

) Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that security for the Republican National Convention could cost $65 million – more than double his original estimate – but most of it will be covered by the federal government…

Boston

The Democratic National Convention netted Boston’s economy just $14.8 million, less than a tenth of what city officials promised, a local think tank reported yesterday - a claim quickly rejected by Mayor Thomas M. Menino.
In total, the event brought in $156.7 million in extra spending, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University found. But BHI said the loss of events that could have happened and the drop in commuter spending cost the city $141.9 million.

[milroyj]

@MsRobyn

Given Bush’s L’etat est moi attitude, if the constitutional amendment limiting the president to two terms is repealed to allow him to run for a third term, I am leaving the country. Robin

Tis to laugh. Some of y’all were saying that Bush was going to postpone the 2004 elections to stay in power. Since that didn’t happen, the new theory is that he’s going to what, unilaterally repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution?

As far as leaving the country goes, people have been saying that since the 2000 election, yet I haven’t really seen many people, you know, actually leaving.

In other words, get a grip.

[wolf_meister]

I think a quote from the movie “The Time Machine” (1960) fits in very nicely here.
George the time traveler is disgusted that the Eloi are a race of do-nothing vegetables and scolds them by saying:

*What have you done? Thousands of years of building and rebuilding, creating and recreating so you can let it crumble to dust. A million years of sensitive men dying for their dreams… FOR WHAT? So you can swim and dance and play.
*
Basically, I think the real problem here is that “Dubya” is a spoiled brat who is used to having all the good things in life. It’s just that taxpayers get pretty damned disgusted when we have to pay for this shit. Bill Clinton came from a dirt-poor abusive family so it wasn’t as if his inaugural celebrations were part of a silver-spoon-in-mouth, cradle-to-grave pampered lifestyle.

I could be wrong but I think that Dubya must be the most-resented President based on personality alone. For me anyway, my dislike for Dubya is not based on any partisan or ideological grounds.

[MsRobyn]

@milroyj

Tis to laugh. Some of y’all were saying that Bush was going to postpone the 2004 elections to stay in power. Since that didn’t happen, the new theory is that he’s going to what, unilaterally repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution?

As far as leaving the country goes, people have been saying that since the 2000 election, yet I haven’t really seen many people, you know, actually leaving.

In other words, get a grip.

He doesn’t have to do it unilaterally. He’s got enough cronies in Congress to make it happen for him.

Robin

[MaxTheVool]

@milroyj

Tis to laugh. Some of y’all were saying that Bush was going to postpone the 2004 elections to stay in power. Since that didn’t happen, the new theory is that he’s going to what, unilaterally repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution?

As far as leaving the country goes, people have been saying that since the 2000 election, yet I haven’t really seen many people, you know, actually leaving.

In other words, get a grip.

Nice productive post there. Let’s see:

(a) responds to hyperbole as if it were a literal claim
Check

(b) lumps all liberals together as “the usual suspects” or “some of y’all”
Check

(c) totally avoids responding to the actual OP of the thread
Check
But it doesn’t have much vitriol or name calling.

I give it 3.7 out of 5 on the Brutus-o-meter

[Bricker]

@MsRobyn

He doesn’t have to do it unilaterally. He’s got enough cronies in Congress to make it happen for him.

And the states?

[Random]

@MsRobyn

Sorry. My French is nonexistent.

Robin

Don’t apologize. You were closer to the original than he was.

“L’etat, c’est moi” -Louis XIV
Cite: http://www.chateauversailles.fr/en/220_Louis_XIV_An_Absolute_Monarch.php

[milroyj]

@MsRobyn

He doesn’t have to do it unilaterally. He’s got enough cronies in Congress to make it happen for him.

Robin

Enough cronies to control 2/3 of the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the States? :rolleyes:

Best adjust your tinfoil hat, sweetie.

[Random]

@Bricker

And the states?

Well, maybe he’d need the states if he had to follow the Constitution.

If you believe what you read from the Michael Moore fans on this board, though, that’s not necessary. All Bush has to do is call up his stooges on the Supreme Court, and they’ll issue whatever opinion he needs.

So, Stoid and company, do I have that right? Are we looking at a third term for Pres. Bush?

[Random]

Sorry, forgot to post a link. Check out post #8:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=50787&highlight=bush+supreme+court+florida

[annaplurabelle]

@Mr. Moto

If you win, you get to dance. This is a pretty well established tradition, and one I hope the Democrats will take full advantage of again, if they ever get their act together and win.

http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/

March 4, 1853
Franklin Pierce
First President to affirm the oath of office rather than swear it; cancelled the Inaugural ball.

March 4, 1913
Woodrow Wilson
Inaugural ball was suspended for the first time since 1853.

January 20, 1945
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Had simple Inaugural ceremony at the White House.

Not a tradition in time of war, is it?

[Random]

What wars was the U.S. fighting in 1913 and 1853?

[annaplurabelle]

@Random

What wars was the U.S. fighting in 1913 and 1853?

Perhaps you’re right - at least as far as 1853…

http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/daysevents/inauguralball.htm

In 1913, the city’s Inaugural organizers began planning the ball to celebrate Woodrow Wilson’s Inauguration, again to be held at the Pension Building, but President-elect Wilson thought otherwise. He felt the ball was too expensive and unnecessary for the solemn occasion of the Inaugural, and asked the Inaugural committee to cancel it. The city of Washington had not missed an Inaugural ball since 1853, when a grieving President Franklin Pierce—mourning the recent loss of his son—asked that the ball be cancelled. Although some D.C. residents felt very disappointed by Wilson’s request, others felt relieved. The Pension Building was often closed for over a week in preparation for the ball, causing the government’s business there to shut down.

President-elect Warren G. Harding also requested that the Inaugural committee do away with the elaborate ball (and the parade as well) in 1921, hoping to set an example of thrift and simplicity. The committee complied, and instead, the chairman of the Inaugural ball committee hosted a huge private party at his home. Subsequent Inaugurations followed this trend, with charity balls becoming the fashion for the Inaugurations of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

President Harry Truman revived the official ball in 1949.

I’d like to think that the tradition of solemnity should apply this year as well.

[Random]

I’m not a big proponent of tax dollars going to inagural balls, but there was no war in 1913, either. World War I didn’t begin until 1914, and the US didn’t enter it until 1917.

[annaplurabelle]

@Random

I’m not a big proponent of tax dollars going to inagural balls, but there was no war in 1913, either. World War I didn’t begin until 1914, and the US didn’t enter it until 1917.

Okay. Retract the part about “in time of war”…

Apparently, it was a personal decision on Wilson’s part too.

Lincoln also chose to hold balls in spite of the Civil War.

So no hard and fast tradition holds. Never mind…

[elucidator]

Can’t help thinking about it. All those fat cat Pubbie contributors, and bankers, and industrial typhoons, and lobbyists…the most intense collection of greedy, smarmy, self-satisfied hypocrites and Pharisees, all in one location, all at one time…

So, Lord, if you ever wanted to give us a Sign…I have a suggestion…

[Random]

@elucidator

Can’t help thinking about it. All those fat cat Pubbie contributors, and bankers, and industrial typhoons, and lobbyists…the most intense collection of greedy, smarmy, self-satisfied hypocrites and Pharisees, all in one location, all at one time…

So, Lord, if you ever wanted to give us a Sign…I have a suggestion…

Well, if you’re right, the industrial typhoons should be adequate to cause the deaths you seek.

Of course, if the Republicans are miraculously saved from your typhoons, I assume you’ll be conceding that is ample evidence of godly approval of Bush’s policies.

[Loopus]

@Orbifold

Bit of a hijack, but man…pity the poor marching bands.

If you’re in a marching band performing at the inauguration, you have to:
[ul]
[li]First, go to the Pentagon…yes, the freakin’ Pentagon…in the early morning where you will pass through a metal detector while bomb-sniffing dogs search your bus.[/li][li]Then, get driven from the Pentagon to the Washington Mall, where you will spend most of the day in a tent under guard.[/li][li]If you have to go potty during this time, you will be escorted to and from the bathroom by security personnel.[/li][li]Finally, march in front of the President…except you can’t make any sudden movements or even make eye contact with the Pres while you pass in front of him.[/li][/ul]

I gotta admit, if the pomp and circumstance is this much trouble then a quiet, dignified ceremony in the Rose Garden is looking better and better.

The marching band director here at the University of Houston tried to get us to march in the inaugural parade, but luckily for us he failed.

Remembering all the security garbage we had to go through when we performed at the Super Bowl, all that doesn’t surprise me. When we wanted to go to the bathroom at the dress rehersal at Reliant Stadium, we had to get nine people to go with us, and were escorted back and forth. We heard a rumor shortly before the big game that the president would be in attendence, and the thought of that wasn’t happy. Security was stupid enough without the freaking president there. Luckily he didn’t come.

I don’t envy the folks performing at the inauguration. Sounds 100 times worse.

[elucidator]

Gosh, he is so proud of himself…it would be cruel to tell him…

When you whoosh upon a star
Makes no difference who you are…