November 28, 2008

We should have a "very muted" inauguration

Who says so? Why, all those "progressives!" From prior to President Bush's 2004 inauguration:

Critics are calling on U.S. President George W Bush to scale back the glittering multimillion dollar parties planned this week in honor of his second-term inauguration, saying lavish festivities are unseemly at a time of war.

... Critics insist that with U.S. troops dying daily in Iraq, the tone surrounding this year’s inaugural celebration should be more modest.

“I would have hoped they would have followed the traditions of President Wilson and President Roosevelt, who at a time of war had a very muted celebration,” said Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, speaking on CNN.

“I think when young men and women are dying we should think about the reality of how we conduct ourselves here at home.”

His comments echoed those of Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner, who, in a letter to Bush, urged the president to redirect some of the $40 million “towards a use more fitting to these somber times — bonuses or equipment for our troops.”

Here is a copy of Weiner's entire letter. Michelle Malkin asks:

With an estimated 1.5 million people expected to descend on Washington for the Obama festivities and a federal tax bill alone of at least $50 million, next January’s inauguration will dwarf Bush’s inaugural events and expenses. We are still at war. And, as the Democrats remind us, economic times are tough and average Americans are hurting.

Will Democrat Rep. Weiner demand that Obama go the “cold chicken salad and plain pound cake” route (as FDR did in 1945) and redirect all the money Obama’s Chicago team is raising to the troops, too? Or has he stopped caring about the brave men and women he exploited in 2005 to score Bush-bashing points with the nutroots?

Will billionaire Mark Cuban, who demanded that Bush donate his inauguration funds to Indonesian tsunami victims, call on Obama to fork over the inaugural funds to victims of the Mumbai terrorist bombings or to distressed American homeowners under water on their mortgages?

Where are all the anti-Inauguration critics now?

Just wondering.

She's not really wondering. Michelle knows. Anything associated with "progressives" and/or liberals is "good" and hence cost is never a factor. It goes to the "good." It is just plain "good" that Barack Obama -- The Messiah -- was elected, and no amount of money is too little to celebrate this event. Nuclear war? No worries. Giant asteroid heading our way in a few months? Big deal. Sagittarius A* sucking in the Milky Way to oblivion? Feh.

Posted by Hube at November 28, 2008 09:29 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Well...instead of the glitz, glam and bling affairs he could replicate Jesse Ventura's inauguration. ;) Open it to the public, twenty bucks a ticket for non-DC residents; held on the Elipse with food vendors etc. Entertainers, artistes who supported him thoughout could put their money where their mouths are and play, sing, free gratis...better yet, THEY pay to appear. If Obama be the man of the people give "the people" an opportunity to celebrate his event at a low-cost, money from which would go INTO the coffers rather than out of them.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at November 28, 2008 11:02 AM

Well, here's one Progressive view. Take it as you will.

Next year's inauguration should be marked by dignity, decorum, and respect. I, and many like me, have had enough of the media blitz surrounding Obama, and it will be time to let the man go to work.

A lavish party will give the finger to the economic state of the country, and we don't need that kind of message. In fact, in the middle of the second speech, Obama should interrupt with, "Are we done? I have some shit that I need to do!"

Posted by: Joe M at November 28, 2008 11:45 AM

Liberal NIMBY hypocrites, Hube! You should understand them by now.

For instance, they are all about free speech as long as they agree with it. If not, sensor the shit out of it! I’ve been banned over at DE Liberal for several weeks now because they didn’t like what I was writing.

They are utterly sickening.

Posted by: a. bundy at November 28, 2008 01:35 PM

Lord, of all the things we need to concern ourselves with, this seems so stupid. What's 50 million when we now owe at least three trillion. If 50 million is spent or not on the Inauguration, how will that hurt or help?
Why don't you spend your energy helping the people who lost their jobs, or the guys over in Iraq and Afghanistan who are paid nothing while Blackwater guys are paid at least $100,000 a head, and are furnished with all the most up to date armor and weapons? While our guys come home and don't even have decent care for their injuries, and their families live on nothing?
Never mind.
Worry about how much an inauguration costs. Why not?
The issue isn't about the money, but the "fairness" of it all, right? If Bush was asked to cut back on the lavishness of his 2nd inaugural, then Obama should also be. Of course, both the 2nd inaugural and Obama's are in the middle of a horrible financial situation because of Bush's lack of leadership.
I suggest we have the oil companies and the Sheiks help us out with loans. They can afford it. We'll pay them back with printing our worthless money.


chrys333

Posted by: chrys333 at November 28, 2008 01:46 PM

Bundy: Banned at DE Liberal??

Just yet another example of what a bunch of f***ing hypocrite losers they are. Really.

Posted by: Hube at November 28, 2008 02:31 PM