As of today, there are ten days left until they drive the final stake through the heart of the rotting corpse of the Bush administration's policies. How will you be celebrating next week?
======
While we're at it, a little fuzzy-headed nostalgia, thanks to David Letterman. His Top Ten Things We'll Miss About Bush.
77 comments:
I don't think I'll be ready to celebrate much just yet, While I will exhale a huge sigh of relief once Bush and his minions have packed their bags, I believe I will once again be holding my breath for 90 days or so waiting to see how much of his promises Obama can deliver. (In fact, I may NOT try holding my breath that long; perhaps I'll just breathe shallowly.)
Relax in 90 days you the media and Obama will have forgotten all about any promises.
Plus I think Obama got with a focus group and decided that promisies are now called "goals"
That Letterman piece was a hoot!
Yes, I will definitely miss all the laughs I've had the past 8 years, but I won't miss the misery.
Well, I guess that means Bush still has a little time left to deliver on his promise to fix social security (remember that little weapon of mass distraction that lasted about a week?) or his promise for Middle East peace (I think that one lasted even less time) or his promise to fix illegal immigration (I think that one may have lasted a whole 2 weeks), or his promise to ... etc., etc., etc...
Heh. Remember the week of Mars? All those announcements about going to Mars and then they never mentioned it again? LOL. That was the 3rd or 4th "promise of the week" distraction meant to keep the focus off whatever the administration was screwing up at the time.
I have no energy to celebrate. I will just be glad we're all still alive. . .
Thanks all. I don't reckon I'll be having any huge party or anything, either. Just gettin' by is celebration enough, sometimes.
We will be celebrating with my in-laws. They have all taken inauguration day off, and, as far as I can tell, so has almost every African-American in corporate New York.
Kind of like a movie a few years ago referring to Latinos, the nation may experience a day without hundreds of thousands of black folks working.
The momentousness of Obama's swearing in will dawn on many people when news stories start to come out from the black community - members of whom are referring to Barack as their new "Moses" - and parties galore.
I fully expect the same tears from my wife, sister-in-law, and parents-in-law that poured down on Nov. 4th at 11pm.
And mine will follow.
I will most likely be traveling from California to Kentucky....and I just realized I will most likely be at an airport or in the air for the whole event.
Since I have watched every swearing since as far as I can remember I REALLY want to see this one.
I really have no idea of what to expect from Barack Obama but I can say that NO president in the history of this country has ever taken over the reins of government when our country was such a mess and facing so many hurdles.
No matter how much of the "on my watch" crap Bush wants to spew the reality is that Obama is being faced with the same situation FDR faced in 1933 AND he is also facing two wars and the middle east in flames..which no President has ever had to deal with at the start of his term.
Bush would have better served his legacy had he and Cheney left quietly.....
All Bush had to promise to get elected in 2000 is to bring the respect back to the office....that was a low bar....which he did not achieve.
Obama has to achieve a much higher promise and live up to much higher expectations.
TAO wrote:
I really have no idea of what to expect from Barack Obama but I can say that NO president in the history of this country has ever taken over the reins of government when our country was such a mess and facing so many hurdles.
Abraham Lincoln?
Or, to a lesser extent, how about George Washington or Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
Geez, Truman was handed WWII!
And Barry takes over planning on doing much of the same economic mistakes that Bush most recently tried and you people want to celebrate!
To begin, I've never "celebrated" an inauguration before. In fact, I don't believe I've ever taken special time to witness one. In this case, what's to celebrate? What little he's said during his campaign about his plans are already changing before he takes the oath to protect that which he finds so troubling. So it must be to celebrate the election of the closest we've come to electing a black man. He's a bit more black than the "first" black president, but not completely. You'll celebrate his black half at the expense of his white half. How is celebrating on the basis of color or ethnicity a sign of progress? I certainly didn't oppose him based on color, but we have seen proofs of his support being based on it since so few of his supporters could testify to his plans or track record. Indeed the most notable aspect is that Barry won so much support by doing so little (if anything). But then, considering that, I'm not surprised you all would don the party hats. It totally makes sense.
Us and a good portion of the world.
1. We're celebrating because we think Bush's policies have been horrifying and probably criminal (or at least worthy of investigation for crimes and convicted if the evidence supports it).
2. We further celebrate NOT because Obama is a savior or will by any means whatsoever be a perfect president - he certainly won't - but because he promises to be significantly LESS AWFUL than Bush. I have few doubts that Bush will go down in history as one of our worst presidents ever.
3. It IS a worthy thing to celebrate our nation's first minority president. Failure to recognize how significant this is indicates a lack of understanding of history and the racial divide in this great nation.
4. Not that Obama was elected based on his race - he was a phenomenal candidate who ran an exemplary campaign; a campaign that will be studied and emulated for some time, no doubt.
Those who fail to recognize how truly awful Bush's policies and practices have been will be laughed at in amazement in history books and by future generations, I predict.
MA sees Barack and starts quantifying his mixed race heritage. (Why, sir, that blackie is a quadroon and therefore not allowed in this here saloon.)
But he can't see 12 million Americans and what Tuesday will meant to them.
Doubtless, he has never seen them, really.
Which is the point black folks have been making since they were first unloaded and began to inherit white DNA when MA's ancestors raped the women in the slave quarters.
We will be at this same kind of point when we first elect a women to executive power, since MA does not demonstrate any growth potential.
Obama is just one man. I will be celebrating the new political energy of youth--ending 2 decades of political apathy by the young. They really made a differenc. If only the 18-29 year olds had voted, Obama's win would have been even bigger.
I'm also celebrating the defeat of fear tactics and smears. The return to valuing smart people and not revelling in ignorance. I am celebrating the number of people who went into public service in small elections that got little media coverage:
2 examples--The oldest incoming frosh Representative will be Walt Minnick (D)who won in IDAHO! There is also progressive Tom Periello who won in the most conservative district in VA and ran on a mostly progressive economic platform. He went from community service to public service.
Mostly, I am not celebrating the inauguration as "victory," but as "opportunity." Obama himself says often that change comes from the bottom up and that elected officials must be pushed and held accountable--and I intend to do just that with his admin. and the Democratic Congress:
We have the opportunity to end torture, illegal detentions without charge or trial, rendition (kidnapping and outsourcing torture) and numerous other human rights and civil liberties violations--and to prosecute those who committed those crimes.
We have the opportunity quit giving the upper 1% of richest Americans huge giveaways at the expense of the rest of us.
We have the opportunity to aid organized labor and ordinary working people.
We have the opportunity to stop and reverse catastrophic climate change (although the window of opportunity is closing fast). We have the opportunity to renew a sense of the common good instead of private and corporate greed.
We have the opportunity to truly work for world peace--amidst HUGE challenges to that. Not all of these were of U.S. making, but many of these challenges were made worse by the last eight years.
A crisis is both a danger and opportunity. Facing the dangers squarely, I want to celebrate the opportunities--briefly. Then roll up my sleeves and get back to work on those opportunities.
I do request prayer that I not give in to Schadenfreude, the vice of rejoicing when adversaries are doing poorly. It has been REALLY tough not to gloat over the woes of the Right Wing. I must repent.
"So it must be to celebrate the election of the closest we've come to electing a black man. He's a bit more black than the "first" black president, but not completely. You'll celebrate his black half at the expense of his white half."
Wow. MA reiterates the one drop rule for the 21st century.
Well done, sir, well done.
While there is much to celebrate (and most of you folks have listed the reasons), I still fear the current of McCarthyism that runs in our body politic, and the politics of sabotage that puts ideology before country ... especially in these times when there is so much on Obama's plate. I just hope our country, and our legislative branch, pulls together in a unified effort. If not, recriminations won't even be a luxury.
I remember how I felt looking down at the ballot on election day and realizing that I was voting for a black man and for the first time a man who was younger than myself. While I have only voted three times in my life this was the first time that I have ever voted for a winner!
I also cannot help but admire how he reached out to John McCain and Rick Warren, conservative members of congress, and now has gone and had dinner with a group of conservative thinkers....and they all came away very impressed with the man.
Our country is enmeshed in some very serious problems and I believe that America has found the one man who can bring all of us together and focus us back to the central purpose and that is what is best for our country.
He has already told Congress that he will not allow earmarks and he wants to control his stimulus program rather than having congress turn it into a pork project bill.
There is something very different about Obama and maybe his youth and his inexperience is a PLUS because he is not as locked into one point of view nor is he burdened with the political baggage that others are...
I do not expect much in 90 days because reality is the economy will be a lot worse in 90 days but doing something is better than doing nothing....as we have seen from the last 8 years.
President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in
1993.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost
$150 Large, you've got to be kidding me. How many struggling companies could we bail out for this kind of $$$? How many families could get mortgage relief? How many houses could we build for low income families? How many teachers could we fund?
Seriously, this better be one damn fine party for that kind of dough.
I don't reckon we've ever had a gazillion people all excited about seeing an inauguration before...
"MA sees Barack and starts quantifying his mixed race heritage."
Not at all. I'm saying his supporters did. That's been evidenced by the many, and there are very many, who have no idea of his past performance or what he believes. (I'm sure you've all seen the video.) I know I've yet to find anyone who voted for him to list any sensible reason. Of course some voted to prevent another Republican from winning. The fact of the matter is that he got most of his attention due to his color. Don't go attacking me for this fact or for acknowledging it. Hell, you guys dis Bush as a war criminal without any evidence ever being brought forth that Judge Judy would waste time over.
But as I said before, said here and will continue to say, I don't give a flying rat's ass what color he is and that alone shows I've progressed more than anyone who believes his elevation is a worth any extra attention. Feodor says he doubts I've ever really seen 12 million people he saw fit to separate in order to berate me. I see them within the body of the American population as an equal part and like MLK hoped for, I judge each on the content of their character. (And BTW Feodor, you twit, my ancestors lived in Poland until my grandparents immigrated---nice try, loser.)
So this extra celebration is indeed over that which we are supposed to be progressing past. It shows the exact opposite of what you believe it does, that we as a nation are far from having overcome racism, that Obama's elevation should elicit such joyous celebration. He certainly has no track record that should provoke excitement. Content of character? He's a Chicago Democrat groomed within the Chicago Machine who's aligned himself with anyone that could move him further faster, be they racists (WRight), terrorists (Ayers), crooks (Rezko) and has supported abortion on demand for anyone, anytime, for any reason, all the way up until after birth. Yeah, he's a peach.
For the record, I'm hope he was the biggest liar and chumped you all and that he will govern in effective ways for the benefit of all Americans. On this I could not be more sincere. I just don't see it happening.
One more thing: "One drop rule", Alan? You've got more than one drop of stupid, my friend.
Fellas, play nice. Marshall, if you make racist-sounding comments, don't be surprised when people surmise you're making racist comments.
Marshall said:
That's been evidenced by the many, and there are very many, who have no idea of his past performance or what he believes.
Marshall, the problem is, you watch a video showing a handful of people who don't know about Obama's policies and you assume to think that represents the whole.
You assume too much.
Just because you don't agree with others' well-reasoned decision to vote Obama does not mean they don't have good reasons.
The fact of the matter is that he got most of his attention due to his color.
The fact is, you don't have a grasp of the meaning of the word "fact." In fact, that is your opinion, and it is not one based on facts or science but merely ignorance.
"One more thing: "One drop rule", Alan? You've got more than one drop of stupid, my friend."
Oooh, snap! ROFL.
Again, all MA can do is insult ... and not very well.
Craig complains about the cost of the inauguration.
Fair enough complaint, I suppose. But then, does he have cable TV? How many poor people could be fed from that money? Does he ever go to movies? How many poor people could be fed from that money.
The majority of the money for the inauguration is private citizens giving their own money. Unless now, Craig, you're suggesting that the government knows better than they do about how to spend it.
$150 million is actually only a buck or two per person in the country. Not bad, actually.
You know, when I was younger I worked as a professional pyrotechnician. We shot fireworks shows for cities around the midwest over July 4th, or for some local potato festival, or whatever. Few of these shows ran less than $10K, and several were more than $50K. Now, could that money have been spent on feeding the poor? Sure. But given the crowds, the cost was generally less than a buck a person. Free entertainment that brings people together to celebrate an important event in their lives.
Big deal.
(I suspect though if we tried to raise taxes by $150 million to actually pay for a new program for the poor, folks who are complaining about the cost of the inauguration would be against the tax.)
Feodor cast an unfair (perhaps accurate, but unfair, nonetheless) aspersion upon Marshall, which I deleted.
Talk about issues, not people and not people's families, folk.
My point is that as Caucasians inescapably have a heritage that originates from the last four hundred years of history of north Atlantic countries or countries that contributed seamen to work in the Western Hemisphere, therefore we have skin in the game of slavery.
This is the unavoidable fact of history which does not impute personal guilt but identifies heritage that is almost altogether kept repressed by white folks.
My family owned slaves on my mother's side. Poor, transient, tenant farmers moving by generation westward across the deep south, they nonetheless had resources to own two slaves.
For white folks, as we let ourselves be generally or defensively aware of the significance of Tuesday on the nature of American society, we will, once again, instinctively raise the filters that keep that part of our heritage from inducing shame, guilt, and a sense of redemption, too. It has become a cultural trait over the centuries and is so natural to us as to be air. We can notice air, when we pause and do so or if someone points it out. How often, though, and with what degree of concentration do we think of air?
MA can't see how he counts DNA contributions because we all habitually count DNA contributions, almost without conscious thought.
There is not an African-American alive who does not have DNA from "white" Europe. Not one. Not that this is a bad thing as it is. Television specials will increasingly tell us who we are genetically as Americans and lots of real surprises will be discovered.
It is no surprise, though, that a Pole can have African DNA. The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries did not scrub the working classes so hard with racial hatred as the twentieth. It may have been unseemly, and racist notions may have been present, but people mixed together below elite circles.
"The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Obama's policy positions aside, to break the color line in the American Presidency is a great thing, and should be celebrated by citizens of every political stripe. One more aspect of America's ugly racial history will die in a few days, never to rise again.
Prediction: there will never be an all-White male ticket from the two major parties for the next twenty years.
John, your prediction could be right, but that means that the GOP will probably be nominating white women. They simply don't have much "bench" when it comes to persons of color--partly because of 40+ years of Nixon's "Southern strategy" of using code words to appeal to the racial prejudices of whites and partly because of policies that African-Americans, Latinos and others see as objectively hurting them regardless of the personal prejudices (or lack) of the GOP.
The GOP considered running Colin Powell in '00, but the party base ganged up on him and his wife became afraid of assassination attempts. There was a grassroots women's campaign for McCain to name Condi Rice as his running mate (a combination that would have been hard to beat), but the base doesn't like Condi's pro-choice views and McCain never gave it serious thought.
Who will the GOP run if not white men? Gov. Bobby Jindal of LA whose parents came from India? No because his approval ratings even in LA are tanking fast. Mel Martinez of FL? No, Mel is so unpopular that he is retiring in '10 after 1 senate term. Alan Keyes? Michael Steele (former Lt. Gov of MD)? He'd be a good choice, but is too moderate to make it out of GOP primaries.
A political party which is 93% white, as the GOP is, and which has little message for minorities (and keeps trying to gerrymander districts to keep from needing to appeal to them) is not going to have much of a "person of color" bench to run even as VP candidates.
Even with white women, the eligible Republican candidates are thinning. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of TX would have been a powerful running mate for McCain, but will now be too old. It is clear that she plans to retire from the Senate in '10 and end her career by running for TX Gov.
Liddy Dole of NC lost her Senate seat to a virtual unknown state sen. (Kay Hagan). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine are too moderate for the GOP base in presidential campaigns.
I guess they can keep running Sarah Palin (good luck with that), whose popularity is tanking even in AK because of her neglect of AK duties SINCE the election. Or they can wait until the Bush twins get older (and go through rehab since they are following papa's example as a drunk until his '40s).
Meanwhile, Democrats have an embarrassment of wealth when it comes to talented female politicians and politco persons of color. In the wake of Obama's historic win, expect more African-American and Latino congresspeople to run for statewide offices such as governor and senator (beginning with Rep. Kendrick Meek's run for the U.S. Senate from Florida). Hopefully, Asian and Native Americans will too.
Yes, the GOP has few non-white options. Jindal was smart enough to stay out of this past race, and if he's still smart, he'll let Obama take a second term and wait until 2016.
Steele, aka 'Token'? He needs to hold some sort of national office (e.g. gov, sen, rep) before running for the big chair.
Palin...I dunno. She energizes the base, but the also energizes the Left's base, too.
I could be wrong about my prediction. The GOP could be stupid enough to run an all white male ticket in four years.
I would, at this point, like to trot out my old proposal that the GOP follow the path of Cobra in G.I. Joe and genetically engineer a new leader from the genetic remnants of past leaders. Serpentor, taken from the DNA of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon Bonapartre did a much better job than his predacessor. Maybe the Republicans can do likewise.
"Serpentor, taken from the DNA of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon Bonapartre did a much better job than his predecessor."
That comment is made of win. :)
If you'll remember though, Destro and Dr. Mindbender were unable to obtain all of the portions of DNA they needed, so Serpentor ended up being a bit unstable. But not so unstable that he couldn't end every sentence with, "This I command!!!
heh.
So let's look at the response to GW's second inaugural which cost less than 1/3 of the Obama coronation.
“Many have wondered whether, given the war and all of our security challenges right now, it’s appropriate to have a lavish and expensive inaugural celebration?”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Laura Bush in a taped interview shown on the January 20 Good Morning America.
“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.
“On World News Tonight/Sunday,President Bush prepares for his second inauguration. In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?”
— ABC’s Terry Moran on World News Tonight, January 16.
The Associated Press wasn't to be left out:
The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?
Not to be outdone, Salon ballyhooed the security concerns and absolutely tore Bush's inauguration to shreds:
And it might have been helpful in the limited media debate that did take place about the inauguration's costs to point out that if the $40 million to $50 million raised for the GOP's parties had been donated to the war effort, as some have suggested, the money would have covered only about six hours of the U.S. military's operations in Iraq.
Oh, and don't forget ABC's dirty trick:
“For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.”
—Announcement posted on the ABC News Web site on January 19 and captured by blogger John Hinderaker.
Now lets replace the references to the Iraq war with references to the recession.
These are quotes, stories and headlines we will never see this year. But it's OK they're just slamming Bush. But when it comes to the chosen one the headlines are a little different.
Tuesday's AP headline by Laurie Kellman:
“For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy." [via]
Maybe we should just let them eat cake.
I'm curious how the appropriate standard to judge these things is by what I do or don't do. What should we expect.
Does this make anyone jealous?
Craig, I'd suggest there's a world of difference between spending a bunch of money on an unpopular president who wasted a lot of money on an unpopular war (unpopular because so many thought it was so wrong) and who had so many unpopular policies... between spending money on THAT inauguration and this inauguration. You DO understand how significant this inauguration is for a huge segment of the US and around the world (when has the whole WORLD been so enchanted by a US president-elect??)?
Beyond the race thing - and setting aside the non-starter "messiah" sour grapes complaints - Obama's election IS a big deal. Now, as a simple living advocate, I'm not into glitz and expensive hoohaws, so if I were organizing this, I would keep it as simple as possible. Still, this is the hugest gathering of people for an inauguration ever, there WILL be some costs associated with it just because of the size and interest.
And I am sympathetic to money being spent because there is SUCH an immense swelling of interest in the running of our nation by the people of the US.
Craig, someone's already asked the question of you, I don't think you've responded - are you opposed to spending of money for inaugurations in general or are you merely unhappy because you perceive that "the media" complained about Bush's expenditures but "the media" is not complaining about this one?
Palin...I dunno. She energizes the base, but the also energizes the Left's base, too.
She energizes an AWFUL lot of people opposed to her, not just the Left. She comes across as scary and inappropriate for office to a big majority of the US, it seems to me (judging by polls).
I'd love for the GOP to run her again in four years, if they're interested in a beating. They can't win by running a candidate that energizes some 25% of the people but who turns off 70%. If the GOP bangs their head up against the stone wall a few more times, maybe it'll sink in.
Dan,
I apologize for missing the question, so I will answer it.
I believe that ANY and ALL inaugurations (and conventions for that matter) should cost as near zero dollars as possible. Seriously, do you think Lincoln, Washington or Jefferson would have been a party to something like this.
Having said that, the double standard is alive and well. If ostentation was inappropriate during the early phase of the Iraq war (and that is what most of the complaining was about) then it is all that much more inappropriate during the continuation of the Iraq war and the current economic situation.
Honestly the one that gets me most is "For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy." if any republican had said that you all would be apoplectic.
Change, no...same stuff different day.
Dan,
Since answering questions is so important here, when do I get one?
Craig, I'm not sure what your question is. Are you referring to this?
I'm curious how the appropriate standard to judge these things is by what I do or don't do. What should we expect.
If so, I'm unclear on the question, still. If you're asking, Does context make a difference? I say, yes, it does. You should expect to be judged differently if you're the one who took us into an immoral war than if you're the one promising to end that war.
There's much more reason for criticizing Bush for having a big party when he's dragged us into a bad war than there is for having the big party for Obama.
Is that what you're asking or are you asking something else?
Dan wrote:
She energizes an AWFUL lot of people opposed to her, not just the Left. She comes across as scary and inappropriate for office to a big majority of the US, it seems to me (judging by polls).
Yeah, one of the things that I like about Palin is that she pisses off all the right people. She is most decidedly not affiliated with the elite establishment that runs our country. She wasn't born into the elite, like Bush, McCain, or Kerry. And she didn't embrace our cultural betters, like Obama or Biden did. She went to a state school instead of Harvard/Yale, had a number of kids discerned as obscene by so many people, won't compromise her religious views for some namby-pamby denomination, and comes from a state so many people regard as backwater. I've heard her openly and repeatedly called "white trash" and her nomination referred to as the vulgarization of politics. I like that. I like it that she makes the elites -- Left and Right -- angry. I like it that she exposed the class differences in our society that are so often hidden from view.
Maybe that doesn't make for a winning ticket, but it is at least entertaining. And if politics can't be productive, it can be at least entertaining.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if Mary Carey is going to run in four years?
John likes dancing to the fiddle while the state burns.
John, I have to say that it's not the elites of either side alone who don't care for Palin. It's fairly universal except for some 20-25% (best guess) of the hardcore Religious Right.
I have heard too many traditional, conservative types say, "WHAT was McCain thinking?? That woman is just scary in her unpreparedness to be so thrust out on the national stage..." She is not suited to be president and that so many on the far Religious Right think otherwise is just indicative of their disconnect with the world around them.
Personally, I find a lot to like about Palin, in that creepy fundamentalist sort of way. She's probably quite sincere, she's probably quite a "good" person, she IS folksy and down-homey, sort of like Bush. But she is also...
Never mind, Palin is not the topic of the post...
So, how are you celebrating next week, John?
Craig continues to try to play the hypocrisy game.
His argument is, essentially, that people complained about the Bush inauguration expense and thus, those same people should be complaining about the Obama inauguration expense. What he's doing is trying to suggest that anyone here complained about the inauguration expense, simply because he found some quotes in which others did so. It's a rather obvious rhetorical game, I'd say.
Craig, I'd suggest that if you have a problem with ABC, Salon, etc. for what you see is a double standard, then contact them directly, rather than trying to blame us for a double standard we had no part in.
If you don't want to participate in the inauguration, turn the TV off and close the shades. That's what people do when they aren't interested in something, rather than complaining and trying to ruin everyone else's celebration.
I had no problem with the expense of either of Bush's inaugurations for the reasons I've stated above. Nor do I have a problem with Obama's for the same reasons.
Again, Craig, tell us... Are you getting rid of your cable TV? Selling your TV on ebay? Giving all you have to the poor? If not, then I'd say your complaints about how other private citizens spend their money is probably a bit hypocritical itself.
More generally, the argument, "How many poor people could be fed if only we weren't spending it on X?" (in which X can be anything from an inauguration to the Apollo program) rests on the assumption that if we weren't spending the money on X, then people would actually spend it on the poor. I think there's very little evidence that's the case. It's nice rhetoric, but isn't actually a viable argument. It's simply more "gotcha" politics, playing what I call the "hypocrisy game."
Let's take the hypocrisy game to the next level. Tell us Craig, can *you* show us somewhere, a blog comment perhaps, in which you complained about the cost of the Bush inauguration as well? Or is that just another double standard? It seems convenient that you're now saying that you though that was also too expensive now that you want to complain about the Obama inauguration.
John makes the assertion that people disliked Palin because she isn't "elite" enough.
Well, I grew up in a tiny little farming town in Michigan, was raised by working parents (a factory worker and a lunch lady), I go to a state school. By his own definition I am not elite. But I still think Sarah Palin is an idiot.
I don't require an elite person to run the country. But I do want someone with an elite mind running things. I'm not sure why anyone would settle for less.
Folksy doesn't get you brilliant foreign policy. We already had 8 years of "Yee Haw!" as foreign policy, we don't need more of that.
So no, I don't think Sarah Palin is unqualified because she's not "elite". I think she's unqualified because all the available evidence shows she's a .22 caliber mind in a 357 Magnum world.
I, like Octopus, received an invitation to the Inauguration. I won't be attending, however. I'm not much on pomp and circumstance. Plus it's a far drive from Houston, Texas. The wear and tear on my 100,000 mile car isn't worth the trip. I'll watch as much of it as I can. This is history in the making folks and a very exciting time.
As far as Palin - She does real well with prepared speeches. But when she opens her mouth without a script, it all falls apart. Her folksiness is irritating to me.
And as far as elite goes...well...neither Obama nor Biden come from the elite class...so that argument is a bit silly.
This discussion has gone down some interesting, and scary, paths, with Craig showing up and trying to get someone interested in the whole, "Obama's spending $150,000,000 and no one's complaining!" thing he's tried at a couple other places.
As Alan likes to say: Meh.
I refuse to have next Tuesday spoiled by people like Marshall, Craig, or anyone else spoil my realization when I awaken around 2 PM Central Time that George W. Bush is no longer President. I refuse to have my frustrations with some of the things Obama has already done spoil my joy at the thought that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the rest of this criminal enterprise no longer holds office, and will never do so again (God willing and the American people remember long enough to prevent such a catastrophe in the future). As much as I would love to be awake and alert and celebrate, it's still a work day for me, and I will celebrate, in part, by working.
Alan said:
Folksy doesn't get you brilliant foreign policy. We already had 8 years of "Yee Haw!" as foreign policy, we don't need more of that.
Not that folksy precludes genius. Mark Twain, Will Rogers, for instance, both very folksy and yet obviously brilliantly "elite" minds who may have done very well in a representative job. "Folksy" doesn't bother me. Incurious and stilted thinking does.
Alan, it's very true that a lot of people didn't like Palin because of her political views. And some people thought that she wasn't experienced enough. Some of those same people thought that Barack Obama was experienced enough even though he had as much experience in the Senate as Palin had as governor when he decided to run for President. You might not be among them, I don't know. Holding either view that Palin's policies would take us in the wrong direction or that she wasn't prepared for the White House were certainly legitimate arguments to make. And I heard them from many quarters of the Left.
But I also heard unfounded rumors that she was a fundie wacko, fired the town librarian when she wouldn't remove books, secretly claimed her daughter's child as her own, and claimed to see Russia from her house.
I heard complaints about her educational background and her decision to have five children as somehow signifying hillbilly-ness.
In my reading of the situation, she was being attacked, in part, for her social origins, and her unwilligness to embrace the values of the elite.
Dan wrote:
So, how are you celebrating next week, John?
I didn't plan to. Or to mourn, for that matter. So I won't break out my Wal-Mart brand cola until something more personally noteworthy happens.
My employer is broadcasting the inauguration around our facility so people can watch. That's a good thing, as it is historically important. Lots of Black employees and customers are traveling to DC to attend. After centuries of oppression, it must be a glorious thing to see one of your own rise to the highest office.
As for Obama as president...ho hum. Glenn Reynolds advises people not to get too excited about elections because the person that you support tends to be not as good as you hoped and the person that you oppose turns out not to be as bad as you feared. Judging from Obama's transition plans and statements in the past few weeks, I have no reason to fear that Obama will be anything other than an ordinary Democratic president. He's neither messiah nor devil.
John likes dancing to the fiddle while the state burns.
If it's going to burn anyway, why not have fun in the process?
Look, this is government we're talking about. Since when did a politician or group thereof ever solve a problem? They're all crooks, from top to bottom and left to right. I expect nothing but graft and corruption from the likes of these.
"In my reading of the situation, she was being attacked, in part, for her social origins, and her unwilligness to embrace the values of the elite."
Well see that's the thing with democracy. Voters can choose to support a candidate for any reason they want. I'm sure there were folks on the right who supported Palin because they thought she's pretty.
Now I don't think that's much of a reason to vote for someone, just as I don't thing that spending a bazillion dollars on dresses (Oh, Craig, where are you?) is a reason to vote against someone.
There's plenty of shallowness on all sides. But to assume that people didn't support her candidacy only because she wasn't "elite", and to dismiss real criticism as "class oriented" is just as shallow. Why stoop into that morass of shallowness instead of discussing real reasons that real people really didn't support Palin. Instead, your rhetoric just skims across the surface, just like the rhetoric about which you complain.
(Yes, Mark Twain was folksy, and there's nothing wrong with folksy. But Twain, unlike Palin, wasn't *just* folksy. If you removed Palin's folksy gene, you'd be left with a department store mannequin. If you removed Twain's folksy, you'd still have a brilliant man.)
There's plenty of shallowness on all sides. But to assume that people didn't support her candidacy only because she wasn't "elite", and to dismiss real criticism as "class oriented" is just as shallow. Why stoop into that morass of shallowness instead of discussing real reasons that real people really didn't support Palin. Instead, your rhetoric just skims across the surface, just like the rhetoric about which you complain.
Please cite where I wrote that the only reason why people opposed Palin was because of class.
Alan-
In fact, I wrote the exact opposite of what you are alleging:
Alan, it's very true that a lot of people didn't like Palin because of her political views. And some people thought that she wasn't experienced enough. Some of those same people thought that Barack Obama was experienced enough even though he had as much experience in the Senate as Palin had as governor when he decided to run for President. You might not be among them, I don't know. Holding either view that Palin's policies would take us in the wrong direction or that she wasn't prepared for the White House were certainly legitimate arguments to make. And I heard them from many quarters of the Left.
Maybe you should read comments before you argue against them.
Your entire comment (the one at 8:56) was about "elite" vs. "white trash". Once called on it, you acknowledge that there might be real reasons that people didn't support her candidacy. So yes, now you're willing to agree that there might be good reasons to dismiss her as a viable candidate for VP. But that wasn't what you started with, until you were called on it. I wonder why that is.
This is the same sort of tactic Craig employs above. Search out the most meaningless drivel and attempt to raise it to the level actual points made by thoughtful people on the other side., instead of just ignoring it as political hackery, and moving on. I can think of no reason even to bring up the silly rumors regarding Palin's kid, etc., particularly in this conversation, as I don't think a single person here was stupid enough to buy them in the first place. But if one can bring it up over and over again, attempting to make it appear that such ideas had greater popular support than they did, well I guess that's more fun than actually debating qualifications.
I generally think it's best to ignore the wackos on the left and the right. But then I prefer the main course to dessert, which, though fun to eat, isn't really very satisfying or nutritious. You think having her run again would be entertaining. Well, it might be that, but I, for one, would prefer two excellent tickets to choose from.
Your entire comment (the one at 8:56) was about "elite" vs. "white trash". Once called on it, you acknowledge that there might be real reasons that people didn't support her candidacy. So yes, now you're willing to agree that there might be good reasons to dismiss her as a viable candidate for VP. But that wasn't what you started with, until you were called on it. I wonder why that is.
Where did I say that was the only reason people opposed Palin?
Quote me, please.
Though this game is tiring, I never said that you said that was the only reason. Perhaps you should read comments before you argue against them.
Or you can continue to try to distract from my main point by arguing what you think I wrote (rather than what I really wrote, which I've clarified again for you.) Perhaps next we can discuss my frequent comma mistakes and occasional misspellings? ;)
I suppose this too is "entertaining" ... for someone at least.
But that wasn't what you started with, until you were called on it. I wonder why that is.
This is the same sort of tactic Craig employs above.
In John's defense (if I may) and perhaps because I know John a bit better than others here, I took John's original comment only half seriously. I don't think he was intending on serious political discourse by his comment, but merely lightweight jesting.
As opposed to Craig and others.
John could correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a world of difference between his and those of the Craig ilk.
I'm a lefty, but I'm also uncomfortable with the pricetag for the inauguration during these tough times. Obama has tried to raise most of the money privately,, but has been less successful than he was in campaign fundraising. Taxpayers will be stuck with too much of the bill--during a time I'm lobbying to get both Congress and the new admin. (everyone making $50k or more in it anyway) to take 15% pay cuts for the duration of the recession.
On Palin and the elites. Her "class" was manufactured, like Bush's fake cowboy persona to hide the fact that he was an Andover cheerleader and Yale frat boy--a child of extreme privilege who never lived in TX until he was 40 (so the accent is fake, like the Crawford ranch, which he is now selling to move to a gated community in Dallas!).
It wasn't Palin's lack of an Ivy League education that alarmed people, but her complete lack of intellectual curiosity--after 8 years of that. She dropped out of 8 schools before finally obtaining a journalism degree!
She couldn't name a single Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade, even though Exxon v. Baker had just happened and directly involved her state! A VP nominee who couldn't name Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizon, Gideon v. Wainwright, any of the major religious liberty decisions (including the ones her fundamentalist church opposes)???
Oh, and the firing of the librarian story was real and can be looked up on the website of the Anchorage Daily News. You can youtube the witchdoctor coming to her church to cast some kind of spell of protection on her against liberal "witches."
I don't mind folksy when it is genuine (e.g., Carter). I don't mind the political appeal to small towns. I DO think appealing to small towns as "real America" is politically disastrous since it gets the cities and suburbs to vote against you.
By the way, Eric Holder's confirmation hearings showing him condemn waterboarding as torture and say no one is above the law gave me new reason to celebrate.
Hi Dan!
I thought you might like to know that I posted a video of yours on The Listening Blog today:
Birdsong
Hope you don't mind my use of the video. Check out the post if you'd like and leave a comment!
AJ Harbison
<><
Alan wrote:
Though this game is tiring, I never said that you said that was the only reason. Perhaps you should read comments before you argue against them.
Yes, you did. Right here:
There's plenty of shallowness on all sides. But to assume that people didn't support her candidacy only because she wasn't "elite", and to dismiss real criticism as "class oriented" is just as shallow. Why stoop into that morass of shallowness instead of discussing real reasons that real people really didn't support Palin. Instead, your rhetoric just skims across the surface, just like the rhetoric about which you complain.
Emphasis added.
*yawn*
Well, I'll only repeat this only once more. The only reason you gave for people to dislike Palin in your initial comment on the matter was the "elite" vs. "white trash" nonsense. That was the only reason you gave. So I only stated that giving only that reason is silly since only a tiny fraction of people supported such nonsensical reasons.
Unfortunately theonly thing you are only too eager to discuss is the use of the word only. If only you would address the point, because I'm pretty sure you're the only person interested in the word only.
(emphasis added.) ;)
Well, I'll only repeat this only once more. The only reason you gave for people to dislike Palin in your initial comment on the matter was the "elite" vs. "white trash" nonsense. That was the only reason you gave. So I only stated that giving only that reason is silly since only a tiny fraction of people supported such nonsensical reasons.
Not true. As I've proven by quoting you, you were attributing a position to me that I never had.
Unfortunately theonly thing you are only too eager to discuss is the use of the word only. If only you would address the point, because I'm pretty sure you're the only person interested in the word only.
Not true, actually. I'll address any point that you ask. I didn't bring up the exclusivist word "only" -- you did. And you did so, as I've proven, by attributing a position to me that I do not have.
I get the impression that you really want to pick an argument with me -- any argument. Would that be a correct impression?
Dan,
First, allow me to apologize for acknowledging Alan, I know it is a mistake and I sometimes get sucked in.
Second, I find the fact you have allowed Alan's question about my conduct to become the issue. Do you seriously mean to say that your assumptions about my conduct disqualify me from commenting on what appears to be a huge expenditure at a time when a significant part of our population are suffering. I've been down this road with you before, and it's a waste. I don't fit your preconception of what someone like me should be. Suffice it to say that I have spent the last decade personally engaging on a daily basis with issues of homelessness and poverty, including lifestyle and financial sacrifices. So lets move beyond the personal crap.
By this bizarre logic you are hypocritical to comment on the Iraq war, since you have never served in the military. If I was to seriously put forth this stupidity you would laugh at me (rightly so).
Finally, I'll try to be clear so you can understand. My question is "when did my conduct become the standard?" What is so special about me that you judge others by what I do, or don't do? I have never set my self up in this position, why have you?
Dan, at least you acknowledge the fundamental inconsistency of your support for the inauguration panoply, with your persistent call for everyone to live a "simple" life. It is very clear that you, and those of your ilk would support this regardless of the cost, and regardless of the situation of the rest of the country. The sad part is no one's saying you shouldn't be able to, I'm just saying I don't agree. Sorry for daring to disagree and point out some inconsistency.
BTW, now we hear that the actual cost of the inauguration minus security is nearly identical to Bush's inauguration, but the increased price is mostly due to the increased security required for the significantly larger crowds that are expected.
So, yet again, a tempest in a teapot from folks who would rather grouse about minor details than celebrate the peaceful transfer of power, which in this world today, is rare enough to be nearly miraculous.
Actually Craig, my question, which you haven't answered wasn't about your personal behavior but was about whether or not you complained about the cost of the Bush inauguration at that time, as you are complaining about the cost of the Obama administration. Or are you no better than the media you are criticizing?
My comments regarding whether or not you have cable TV were rhetorical. I don't actually care. The point there, which should have been obvious to anyone, is that we all spend money on things that some would probably call "extravagances," whether that's individually (like cable TV) or nationally (like space exploration.) The argument that we could use that money for other things like feeding the poor is only hauled out when people have an ax to grind. You rarely hear an NFL fan complain about all the money that could be used to feed the poor from NFL players' salaries. I'd have no problem making that argument because I don't care about the NFL, yet I "waste" money on season tickets to the local symphony.
Alan,
This is the last time I will respond to you. The answer is yes I did, the problem is just like many of your or Dan's assertions of past actions you can either believe it or not I really don't care. Just to be clear, my opinion is that both the bloated conventions and extravagant inaugurations are a waste of money. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you, but it's mine.
Craig, your opinion does not offend me. I did not say it did, nor imply it. If you're simply going to lie about what I have written, then I would agree with you that it is probably best that you ignore my comments.
As the big day approaches I am going to bow out and let you all celebrate in peace with a few thoughts.
Since it is now apparent that BHO is not only the most qualified president since John Adams, has the highest IQ of any president ever, and has been chosen by God (don't get mad at me, get mad at J Wright). Who am I to raise questions. Enjoy.
In the interest of clarifying (and to use a Dan tactic) I never said that the $170 million should be spent on anything. Instead I asked a question.
"How many struggling companies could we bail out for this kind of $$$? How many families could get mortgage relief? How many houses could we build for low income families? How many teachers could we fund?"
The fact that this audience has difficulty determining the difference between a claim and a question really isn't my fault. So while I will not suggest that anyone lied about what I posted, it seems obvious that there was a significant misunderstanding of the claim/question issue. (I am very aware of this after being taken to task by our host)
Again, enjoy the day. It is historical. I hope you're this happy a year from now.
"Since it is now apparent that BHO is not only the most qualified president since John Adams, has the highest IQ of any president ever, and has been chosen by God (don't get mad at me, get mad at J Wright). Who am I to raise questions. Enjoy."
Same tactic he started with... Make an outlandish claim, suggest that someone here actually supports it, or more generally that the claim is the "liberal" viewpoint. Then retreat complaining, "Oh gee, I was misunderstood."
Uh huh. Sure you were.
Sorry,
I really can't believe I'm letting myself get sucked down this rathole, but here I go.
For the record, I made none of those claims. I was simply repeating the claims of others
Dan made the best pres. since John Adams claim.
The highest IQ was repeated just this morning on Imus, among a number of other places.
J. Wright claimed BHO was chosen by God over the weekend.
Your issue isn't with me (except maybe for quoting others) your issue is with those who said this crap.
Once again, I just asked a question. "couldn't we spend this money better". These claims are solely the peoples who made them. Yes they are stupid, but they're not mine. Nor did I ever claim that they somehow represent anyone other than those who said them.
Again, enjoy the day.
"Once again, I just asked a question. "couldn't we spend this money better".
Yes.
Sorry, been away from the computer. Happy inauguration day, y'all. Good riddance to bad policy.
Craig, suffice to say that you too often misunderstand and misrepresent my position. I'll pass on re-re-clarifying.
Dan,
Since, the only places I represented your position I either quoted you or slightly paraphrased what you said, I'm not sure what you are talking about. But I'm certainly sensitive to someone "misrepresenting" my position.
"Your issue isn't with me (except maybe for quoting others) your issue is with those who said this crap."
I do not have, nor have I ever had any "issue" with you, so why would I have an issue with them? I don't agree with any of those statements, so why should I care? I don't assume you agree with the WND founder who says we should all pray for Obama to fail, nor do I expect you to defend or argue against such crap. So why would you expect that I feel I have to defend the statements of Rev. Wright?
Sorry, that's your tactic, not mine.
"Once again, I just asked a question. "couldn't we spend this money better"."
No, actually you commented on the hypocrisy of the media criticizing Bush's inauguration expenses, but not Obama's, and you misrepresented the facts regarding the cost. I simply stated that 1) the cost is not much higher than Bush's was, and 2) since I didn't complain about Bush's inauguration, why would I complain about this one? and 3) why should I defend your version of hypocrisy, when those on the right (including yourself, it seems) didn't whine about Bush's inauguration expenses either? (But now they're whining about Obama's.)
You must be confused, I never said I expected you to defend anything. I merely pointed out what people are saying about BHO. This is primarily in response to what Dan had said here at his blog.
Yes, I did make the point that the media is being hypocritical in their coverage of this event. It's a legitimate criticism. You don't agree, shocking. If, in fact, I "misrepresented" the expenses I did so to the extent that the best available information is that the total cost of the inauguration was projected to be about $170 million.
You stated the "cost" was not much higher than Bushes why should I believe you. You provided no source. I never asked you to complain about anything, you don't need me to ask, you've got plenty. I also didn't ask you to defend "my version of hypocrisy", in fact I asked you to defend nothing. I have been consistent in my contention that it is a waste to spend hundreds of millions for conventions and inaugurations. The fact that I failed to check in with you before stating this opinion seems beside the point. I really think this has gone further than it should, and I'm sure you'll make sure you have the last word.
Well, frankly I only responded to you to see if I could goad you into continuing to respond to me in spite of your repeated "oh, I shouldn't respond because ..." pablum. :) Yup, it worked, thanks.
But I'll respond again, "Yes, I did make the point that the media is being hypocritical in their coverage of this event. It's a legitimate criticism. You don't agree, shocking."
No, you misunderstand (shocking). I don't disagree that it's hypocritical. I simply don't care. I think process stories like this one are simply designed to take up useful oxygen. If people have a problem with the money being spent on the inauguration, they should attempt to make their arguments more interesting than simply turning their complaints into a whiny "oh look at the big bad media now" charge of hypocrisy that is designed to try to paint all liberals with the same hypocritical brush.
"You stated the "cost" was not much higher than Bushes why should I believe you. You provided no source. "
Meh. Why would I? Seriously, your constant whining about sourcing gets old. Am I the only one who knows how to use google around? If you're don't care enough to bother spending 10 seconds googling the info yourself, why would I care enough to do it for you? My colleagues and I used to have a saying, "never spend more time grading an assignment than the student did producing it." Why should I bother to put effort into a conversation when you have clearly stated (several times) what an enormous burden it is, and when sourcing a statement will only become fodder for yet another process argument about the particular source, instead of any real discussion or debate?
In exactly 2 seconds, by typing "inauguration price" into google, I got this as the top result. (Google is, BTW, a magical tool that we here on the interweb use to find out stuff. You should try it sometime.)
http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/20140724/Obama8217s-inauguration-lik.html?h=E
You'll see that the cost is a couple million more than Bush's, which was about 9 million more than Clinton's. The rest of the price tag is security, which, given the size of the crowds, I think any sane person would think was a *good* idea.
Wow that was a lot of work, wasn't it?
No actually it wasn't. Again, you turn what, for you, is some sort of serious issue (God knows why), into a process issue about whether or not you're able to use google. Well done! If you could make your argument seem more petty, silly, petulant, I'm really not sure how. ;)
LOL :) I knew you'd do it.
However an apparently slightly longer trip through google reveals the following.
As of Jan 6 the Obama folks had raised $27 mil of the approx 44-45 mil they were to contribute. With more recent estimates going to $41mil.
The feds had appropriated $15 mil for security before an unknown amount from FEMA to cover any shortfall. Possibly as much as $49 mil.
The District of Columbia is spending $45-50 with much of the money going "toward creating a dynamic Inauguration experience for the everyday visitor…"
Then there are the costs to the neighboring states of $75 mil
So my admittedly rudimentary math skills put the tab at between $135-174 mil for the various governments. Of that amount only the original $15 is specifically earmarked for security, although I'm sure that the actual security cost is much higher.
This is of course added to the BHO contribution brings the total to between $162-$215 mil. With much of the govt costs for things like toilets, clean up, holiday pay and other non security costs.
The best number I can find for the Bush 2005 Govt spending is $115mil. With no indication as to how much of that was for security.
It should go without saying that if we are going to have an event of this scale with the participation of so much of the government security is paramount. However security alone does not account for the @$20 mil difference.
The funniest thing about this whole conversation is that you have elevated this to some kind of serious issue. I actually tried to move the discussion beyond the inauguration earlier in this thread. This was just for grins.
Having said that I really do need to be done with this. Despite your snarky comments.
LOL. Again, you rise to such cheap bait, it really is pretty funny, Craig.
Anyway, as for your numbers, you didn't provide a link. Thus, I don't believe you.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003
To change the subject. If one senator tries to get another (prospective) senator to break state law, wouldn't that constitute some sort of criminal conspiracy?
Post a Comment