Skip to comments.NYT's Inauguration Hypocrisy: Bush Chided in 2005, but Obama Free to Party
Posted on 01/16/2009 4:16:37 PM PST by St. Louis Conservative
At a time when the United States is fighting two wars and faces a severe recession and huge budget deficits, the inauguration of Barack Obama as the nation's 44th president is estimated to cost $45 million. Bush's 2004 inauguration cost roughly $40 million. But though the figures are similar, there's been a major shift in the tone of coverage at the New York Times.
While the Times spent much of January 2005 making clear its disapproval of Bush extravagantly celebrating his inauguration during wartime, that concerned tone is conspicuously absent from the Times in January 2009, although the country is not only still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in danger of a deep recession. The difference? Perhaps because this time, it's the Times's favored candidate who is readying to assume the highest office.
A January 11, 2005 editorial on Bush's second inauguration, "Victor's Spoils," sniffed:
At the rate President Bush's supporters are giving money, his second inauguration threatens to stand out in the history books like the common folks' muddy boot prints on the White House furniture at Andrew Jackson's gala. The $40 million record for inaugural partying set four years ago for Mr. Bush is expected to be shattered this month....Ordinary citizens might have hoped that the overriding issue in Washington -- the perilous Iraq war, with its drain on the nation's blood and treasure -- would dictate restraint. But plans for the four-day extravaganza roll forward with nine celebratory balls being underwritten by the usual corporate and fat-cat supplicants in the political power mill. There's nothing new in Washington's triumphalist celebrations, festooned with price tags for access, but war usually mutes the singing and dancing. Not this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
40 million here, 45 million there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
The influence of the Dark Side....
...apologies to Everett Dirkson for the paraphrase.
Why would anyone be the slightest bit surprised?
These people are (a) so utterly biased, (b) so utterly stupid, and (c) so utterly incapable of seeing either their stupidity or their bias, that their silly transparent double standard is hardly even worth commenting on.
Basically, they think conservatism is evil and bad, while liberal “progressives” like Obama are virtuous and good. That he is a “minority” makes him morally untouchable, and everyone in his orbit is likewise untouchable by extension.
This is going to last until the first (or perhaps second or third) really, really bad screw-up by Obama; that’s the bad news.
The good news is that it won’t be very long until that screw-up takes place, although I fear it may cost some people their lives when it happens.
The figures I’m hearing are more like $150 million.
Why would anybody expect different from the Obama-media???
That what I have heard also, $150 million.
it’s Obama’s Stimulus Par-tay!
Uh, why would anyone be shocked? The media isn’t ashamed of their bias. In fact, they wear their bias with great pride, because the American people cheer them on.
We are going to have to get over this. We know exactly what to expect for the next four years, maybe even eight. It will be like the Clinton years, only worse. All that’s being accomplished by dwelling on each and every thing they do is stressing us and giving them delight.
The best advice my Mom ever gave me was to learn to change my response to situations I didn’t like and couldn’t change.
I wish I could practice what I preach.
I'm hearing $200 Billion.
There was a banner ad for an Obama collectible plate at the bottom of this article when I opened it.
The irony just kills me...
2005, now those were tough economic times, not like today...
The NUT... oops, NYT, the paper of record.
I really want to hear what they have to say today.
Exactly my reaction to the headline.
These people are (a) so utterly biased, (b) so utterly stupid, and (c) so utterly incapable of seeing either their stupidity or their bias...
Here I disagree, but only because I believe the Times and other left-wing media entities are DELIBERATELY SEDITIOUS. They want to bring the U.S. down to at least the level of a typical EU country, the better to entangle us in their embryonic world government framework.
A genuinely true conservative never, ever forgets that the United States Constitution is antithetical to the Left's ideology. When Obama puts his hand on that Lincoln bible and takes the constitutionally mandated oath of office, he will not mean a word of it.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, last paragraph:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
No Leftist, especially not one who wrote of his enchantment with Marxism in his own autobiography, would ever preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
As much as I respect the great Everett Dirkson, he never said that, or similar phrase.
Really! Please expound. I have no evidence other than word of mouth and am interested.
Sure. Again as much as I loved the man there is no record he ever said the famous phrase, although, with his record he likely believed it.
Not surprising at all. The Old Grey Lady dispensed with any semblance of unbiased reporting during the Reagan Administration.