Friday, January 16, 2009

Costly Inaugurations - The AP Has Diff'rent Strokes For Diff'rent Folks

Completely predictable, by the way....NewsBusters compares the then and now and catches the Associated Press with their pants down and their bias showing:

Here's the AP in January 2004, writing a 'news story' about George W. Bush's 2004 Inaugural:

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?

Now let's move forward to January 2009 and the AP's take on the Obama Inaugural:

For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy
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?

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

So, lessee....Bush gets slammed for running a cheaper affair during a better economy, while Obama gets fist bumps for running the most expensive inaugural in history, over $150 million, during a major economic downturn.

Sounds fair and balanced to me - NOT!

hat tip to Ace


Anonymous said...

The media was right to criticize the expensive inaguration of George W. Bush even if they did it for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately they reveal their hypocrissy when they fail to criticize the even more extravegant inaguration of Mr. Obama.

Actually this extravegance comes as no real surprise. When a company is struggling to stay afloat, typically the very last thing to be cut is executive priveledge and executive pay. I would expect the government to behave no differently.

Anonymous said...

America was reborn on Jan. 20, 2009 as a country no longer bound by elite connections, silver-spoon relationships and mental dysfunction. While the galas and extravaganzas should have been privately funded, it's time that America's minority cultures get to celebrate the way that white Americans have been celebrating for more than 200 years. Buck up.