It's our party, you can cry if you want to
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/20/05 - 15:44 Post subject: It's our party, you can cry if you want to
Ann Coulter's latest column dealing with the inauguration, among other things. Highly topical, don't you think?
| Quote: | January 20, 2005
In what the New York Times called Angola's "worst crisis" in "nearly 30 years" in December 1992, the country erupted into civil war. By January 1993, the streets were piled with thousands of dead bodies. In the prior year, hundreds of thousands had died of starvation in Somalia. Millions more were still at risk.
Also in 1993, January floods left dozens dead and thousands homeless in Tijuana, Mexico. Russia was, according to a New York Times editorial, on the brink of disaster, facing economic circumstances like those "that helped bring forth Hitler." Nine people were killed in a volcano in Colombia in mid-January, including American scientists. In Bosnia, according to the Times, hundreds had died of starvation and exposure in a matter of days.
"It has all been so much fun," Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd gushed in the New York Times in January 1993. It was Bill Clinton's one-week inaugural celebration. "Is it too much to ask that it go on forever?" (For those who loved America, the next eight years would only seem to go on forever.)
Rich and Dowd quoted Hollywood agent Karen Russell, saying: "I'm in this fantasy world. I haven't slept. I'm punch drunk. ... I just feel like I'm in this place called Clinton-land" – which, if it were a theme park, could bill itself as "the sleaziest place on Earth!" Russell, they said, "spoke for everyone."
While dead bodies rotted in the streets of Angola and Somalia, the only "dead soldiers" in evidence in Clinton-land were the empty Cristal bottles lining the parade route. The most massive relief efforts that week took place at the rows of portable toilets circling each site of drunken Clintonista revelry.
Instead of having the usual Inauguration Day in 1993, Clinton had an "Inauguration Week," with high-tech pageantry, large-screen TVs on the mall, Hollywood direction and, indeed, half of Hollywood. The amount of money that would have been saved just by holding the inauguration in Brentwood could have averted the Rwandan tragedy Clinton ignored just a few years later.
The spokesman for Clinton's 1993 Inaugural Committee said the inaugural events would cost about $25 million – largesse exceeded only by the $50 million Ken Starr was forced to spend when "Clintonland" turned out to be populated with felons. Think of all the starving children in Angola, Somalia, Bosnia and elsewhere that $25 million could have fed! And don't even get me started on Michael Moore's "on location" food budget!
I wouldn't mention it, except for the Times' recent editorial snippily remarking that the amount of foreign aid to tsunami victims offered by the United States within the first few days of the disaster was "less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities." By that logic, why hold the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, or spend money on restaurants and theater productions praised in the New York Times? That money could go to tsunami victims!
A letter writer to the Times redoubled the Times' bile, claiming to be "embarrassed for our country" on account of the government's "pathetic initial offer of aid" to the tsunami victims. Yet he was still willing to throw away 37 cents on a postage stamp to send his letter – money that could have been spent on the relief effort! (One strongly suspects the letter writer was embarrassed for his country long before the tsunami hit and will remain so long after.)
Another letter writer suggested the first lady wear a used dress to the inauguration to "honor the young people who are dying in her husband's misbegotten war." (To honor John Kerry's position on Iraq, Mrs. Bush would have to order an expensive gown and then, after it was delivered, decide she didn't want to pay for it.)
Hollywood liberals could not be reached for comment on the cost of the inauguration because they were being fitted for gowns and jewelry worth millions of dollars in anticipation of Oscar night.
Speaking of which, I just remembered: George Soros is worth $7 billion! Couldn't he get by on, say, $1 billion and donate the rest to the tsunami victims? If gun owners have to explain why they "need" a so-called "assault rifle," shouldn't Soros have to explain why he "needs" $7 billion? Last year, Soros announced that the central focus of his life would be removing Bush from office. Would that Soros could refocus that energy on alleviating the suffering of tsunami victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 15:51 Post subject:
Who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 15:59 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | Who cares? |
Apparently those who think that W & Company are spending too much on the current inauguration festivities.
Do you think there is a double standard when compared with Clinton's past inaugurations?
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:08 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Apparently those who think that W & Company are spending too much on the current inauguration festivities.
Do you think there is a double standard when compared with Clinton's past inaugurations? |
My stance is that I think the rich should spend there $$ on things that are more worthwhile rather than parties. I also think that the gov't should set an example and not throw the party. Don't care who it's for.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:48 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | Who cares? |
D'oh! That kind of comment started a firestorm yesterday (or whatever day it was).....
Back to your regularly scheduled topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:49 Post subject:
Coulter: rabid little terrier not worth considering
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:51 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Coulter: rabid little terrier not worth considering |
Putting aside your dislike for the source Go - Is there a double standard between Jan, 1993 and Jan, 2005?
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:53 Post subject:
| robp wrote: |
D'oh! That kind of comment started a firestorm yesterday (or whatever day it was).....
Back to your regularly scheduled topic. |
I have no idea what you are talking about 
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:58 Post subject:
| Quote: | | largesse exceeded only by the $50 million Ken Starr was forced to spend when "Clintonland" turned out to be populated with felons |
Yeah, Ol' Ken was forced to churn up every bit of libelous bile that the Coors-Scaife funded yahoo corps could invent!!! And in the end that money was so well spent, I mean so many 'bad guys' were caught and put away.
Talk about your frivolous lawsuits. 
|
|
|
|
|
AlaninTX
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 6582
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:59 Post subject:
That is the great thing about freedom of the press, and free speech. Coulter can write want she wants, frame it anyway she sees fit, and we can decide for ourselves.
In my opinion, Coulter has no credibility and I totally disagree with how she has framed the issue. I could attempt to reframe it the way I see it, but to be honest I do not consider Coulter, or her framework, to be worth the effort. In short, I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 17:03 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Putting aside your dislike for the source Go - Is there a double standard between Jan, 1993 and Jan, 2005? |
A lot less money was spent back then, both times, and we were (or seemed) to be a lot better off (at least in '97), so massive excess didn't feel so tacky. Now it can be viewed as being wickedly out of touch with the plight of his constituents. You don't party it up when people are dying because of your lies. What happened in '93 isn't the same as what's happening now to Americans.
I don't remember hearing the other side complain about the excess of Clinton back in the day. I remember them complaining that he was in office, but not about inauguration excess. I'm guessing not many did, if for no other reason than the GOP is the party of excess.
I didn't complain in '01. But what's come to pass between now and then is a world of hurt.
So to answer your question, it's hard to perceive an absolute double standard b/c so much is different now than it was. There is no control for the experiment, as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 17:12 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Do you think there is a double standard when compared with Clinton's past inaugurations? |
Of course there is. Bringing up the Clinton presidency is a great taboo now. Talking about indiscretions can't date back before 2000. Doncha know that Sonny? 
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 17:16 Post subject:
Guess what? It's not even as expensive as Clinton's 2nd inauguration....
| Quote: | Inaugural price tag in line with history
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."
But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.
According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.
The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997.
A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.
"Every inaugural, there's a really good reason given why you should spend whatever donors are sending in on something else," Rich Galen, a veteran Republican activist, told the Associated Press, saying many of the complaints come from the losers of the election.
Mr. Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, in a letter to President Bush said that a celebration during the war on terror is inappropriate and the money could be better spent, saying the funds could be used pay for 690 Humvees and a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in Iraq.
"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted — if not canceled — in wartime," said the letter, which cited President Roosevelt's scaled back inauguration in 1945 that had a menu of cold chicken salad and pound cake.
Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and White House officials say the inauguration is an American tradition that transcends partisan politics and is a symbol to the world.
President Johnson didn't eschew pageantry in 1965, racking up a $1.6 million bill for inaugural festivities despite the Vietnam War, historian Robert Dallek told Reuters.
In 1997, there was grumbling that the inauguration cost too much. But Clinton spokesman Barry Toiv said at the time, "It's really a symbol to the world and has been for over 200 years, and it's worth celebrating."
This year, the inaugural committee has taken a similar tact, dubbing the events "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service." |
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 17:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 17:32 Post subject:
From the searching that I have done previous to this post, that (Clinton) number was the same that I have found.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
Related topics: | |
|
|
