If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't believe it: AP asks - why such an expensive inauguration?

.
Typically, Associated Press has been in the tank for The One, just like the rest of the MSM.

So, when I stumbled across this article off Drudge, I had a hard time believing my eyes.

Democrats have been total and complete hypocrites over this issue. Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth... the cacophony of whining and sniveling during the run up to Bush's second inauguration... and now, conditions are worse... much worse.

And what are those same slimy, sniveling democrats saying now?

Absolutely nothing.

This is the first MSM article I've seen calling them on their rank hypocrisy.

Why is it that $150 million is being wasted on this? Why is it the leftist scum so upset in 05 over an inauguration that wasn't even in the same universe as this one are now silent?

When will these questions be answered?

Never. Because these concerns will soon disappear. And the utter waste... the many uses this money COULD have gone to will continue to go begging.

Enjoy. I know I do... and Mr. Obama... I sincerely hope you choke on it.


Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer – Sat Jan 17, 1:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

More:

Giving the leftist MSM a pass -- again: Flashback from 2005 - Giving Bush a pass -- again.

.

I did recall the whining and sniveling from the left about the costs incurred with the Bush inauguration... costs now hugely dwarfed by the coronation of The One.

Yet, when it comes to THOSE costs... why, the leftist MSM seems.... well.... utterly silent... or is it, "utterly hypocritical?"

Some media pegs the cost of this soirée at around $160 million or so. For a party.

That type of rampant cost would have resulted in complete hysteria on the part of, say, the women of "The View," or any of the media outlets that were so totally in the tank for The Messiah, if the beneficiary had been a Republican.

My God, we never would have heard the end of it.

Now, it would seem, if we were to hear anything about it at all, we have to rely on the British Press to keep us informed.

Why am I not surprised?

So, here it is.... a delightful flashback to the 2005 reeking hypocrisy that is the left. Enjoy!

Giving Bush a pass -- again
The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security.

By Eric Boehlert

Jan 20, 2005 In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations "become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor."

Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function -- posing uncomfortable questions to those in power -- with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today's mainstream media.

This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans -- 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans -- would have preferred a "smaller, more subdued" inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush's overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on -- a phenomenon the press ignored.

More:

Obama's Tone Deafness (III) - Obama makes Willamette Week "Rogue of the Week"

.
I seem to recall the left-wing saturated media demanding that all of the money floating President Bush's Inaugurations should have been used for the troops... or the poor... or something.

I'm missing those suggestions this time around. Why is that?

Via oregoncatalyst.com and orbusmax.com.

Barack Obama - Rouge of the Week!

Partying on our last dime

BY WW EDITORIAL STAFF 503-243-2122

[January 7th, 2009]

Plenty of us little people in Portland wish we could make it to Washington, D.C., for Barack Obama’s inauguration. This is the guy Oregon put over the top in the Democratic primaries and in the general election. Trust us, Obama, Portland would rush the stage and crowd-surf you back to Burnside if we could be there.

But sending multiple emails offering us a chance to win one of 10 tickets to the Jan. 20 inauguration—if we donate $25 or more?

Guess what, Mr. President-elect. We’ve lost our jobs. We’re so broke after the holidays we can’t even remember what money looks like. So please, stop guilting us for cash in the middle of recession so you can throw a massive party we can’t attend. Until you stop with the nickel-and-diming, we’re swearing you in as our first Rogue of 2009.

When the first email arrived Dec. 30, we were scraping together our last dollars to go drinking on New Year’s (with a flask of vodka in our sock, recession-style). And there you were giving us the same odds at a ticket as Willy Wonka.

And now a few words to Columbia Credit Union

.
Below is an article just added to the Columbian website, detailing what amounts to a $5000 donation to the Evergreen High School Marching Band, because they've had a difficult time raising the money they need to go to Washington, D.C. to play at President-Elect Obama's inauguration... a noble goal to be sure.

But I'm troubled. I'm troubled that my credit union has cut, for example, dental insurance for employees, but has the money to give away so a marching band can go to the other side of the country.

As lofty a goal as that is... and it is... the priority for CCU must be to take care of employees and their families.

In short, as a result, I don't like this expenditure. To me, this tends to show that the hierarchy of Columbia Credit Union has developed a disturbing priority problem, and that should be fixed.

If you people have the money to give away, then you have the money to restore the dental coverage in place until this last calendar year... coverage that simply doesn't compare to the incredibly expensive replacement.

Evergreen band gets lift
Tuesday, January 6 5:49 p.m.

BY HOWARD BUCK
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Columbia Credit Union has stepped in to help the Evergreen High School Band and Color Guard reach Washington, D.C., for the inaugural parade.

Between now and Feb. 14, Columbia will match all donations from local businesses and community members, up to $5,000.

That’s a potential $10,000 push, much appreciated by the Evergreen High group. The band now stands about $25,000 short of money needed to fly a 150-student contingent back east, organizers say.

More:
.

Gays throwing a fit over Obama's choice of Warren... and why it doesn't matter.

.

Look.... President-Elect Obama has been trying to get us to believe that he will govern from the center.

Now, that's as likely as Vlad. Lenin trying to get a 7-11 franchise, but he's at least going through the motions. And who knows? If Mr. Obama can avoid indictment, at least for awhile, we may get the opportunity to find out.

That said, the more gullible among the left (which means almost every leftist, since to be a leftist speaks to a high level of gullibility to begin with) actually believed that their support of The One would translate into something akin to power. Any thinking sentient being would have known that at about 8:01 pm election night, the left would be kicked to the curb precisely like they were in 2006, when democrats promised the left the moon AND $2 to support them, because, for example, THEY would "end the war in Iraq."

How's that working for them?

The President-Elect's choice of Rick Warren was a brilliant political stroke in a regime that has, so far, shown little brilliance in their handling of the more mundane issues confronting us, such as the Blago Affair, high political buffoonery that even my degree in government couldn't prepare me for.

Warren, author of the massive best-seller "The Purpose Driven Life," was an element of the campaign cycle by virtue of the candidates appearances at Saddleback Church... an appearance that highlighted Mr. Obama's lack of substantive courage of his particular convictions when he indicated that the question of abortion had to be "settled by someone above my pay grade."

By choosing Warren, Mr. Obama hopes to extend the facade of center-governance... for at least awhile.

Leftists generally, and gays specifically, have been throwing a hissy fit since the people of California re-established the "one-man, one-woman" definition of marriage with Prop 8.

So... what's it all mean?

Gay leaders furious with Obama
By BEN SMITH & NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON 12/17/08 5:59 PM EST

Barack Obama’s choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is a conciliatory gesture toward social conservatives who opposed him in November, but it is drawing fierce challenges from a gay rights movement that — in the wake of a gay marriage ban in California — is looking for a fight.

Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California, opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government's role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals’ staunch support for economic conservatism. But it’s his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday.

Rick Warren, Obama’s pick to give the inaugural invocation, backed the California ban on same-sex marriage.
Photo: AP

“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, wrote to Obama Wednesday. “[W]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.

The rapid, angry reaction from a range of gay activists comes as the gay rights movement looks for an opportunity to flex its political muscle. Last summer gay groups complained, but were rebuffed by Obama, when an “ex-gay” singer led Obama’s rallies in South Carolina. And many were shocked last month when voters approved the California ban.

More:

The "why it doesn't matter" aspect is simple political math.

First, the left has, once again, been hosed. That's what they're there for: to get hosed. The fact is that 4 years from now, no one will care who gave the invocation at Mr. Obama's inauguration.

Second, the gay community is neither all that large nor all that powerful.

Third... where else do they really have to go?

Gays are taken for granted as much as minorities when it comes to the vote. The GOP's idiotic lack of focus with minority outreach cedes the minority vote; year after year, election after election.

But in the end, the gay voter has no place else to go. Mr. Obama and the democrats know that; even the faux outrage of the gay community over the Warren selection does nothing to cover that fact.

It's pragmatic politics, folks. And kicking the gay community to the curb after each election is just par for this particular course.

Simple, really.