Skip to comments.Fireworks for the few, Whitehouse feared crowd. (No need for everyone to enjoy[Tax Dollars at work])
Posted on 09/05/2001 11:00:01 PM PDT by Libertarian_4_eva
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED SEPT 05, 2001 22:31:58 ET XXXXX
FIREWORKS FOR THE FEW, WHITE HOUSE FEARED CROWD; COST ESTIMATED IN SIX-FIGURES
Taxpayers may have footed the bill, but White House officials wanted no pre-publicity for a massive fireworks display on The Mall Wednesday night celebrating President Bush's first State Dinner.
The common man was not invited to view the 20-minute fireworks display launched from The Ellipse, described as one of the most dazzling in the city's history.
Officials feared tens of thousands of residents and visitors would gather to watch the show if word leaked out, creating a "security concern" around the executive mansion.
The president and his guests watched the fireworks from the White House's South Balcony.
The cost of the display is said to be $175,000 to $250,000.
A source connected to the Pennsylvania pyrotechnic company responsible for lighting the fireworks, Zambelli Fireworks Internationale, told the DRUDGE REPORT show fees ran into "six figures".
With just 136 invited guests at the White House -- the price tag for the fireworks alone was well north of $1,200 per attendee.
A White House spokesman refused comment on the financing of the fireworks.
The secret fireworks show caught residents by complete surprise.
One local e-mailed: "From my apartment, I just witnessed the most amazing fireworks I have seen in my twenty years in Washington."
A second eyewitness described the show as being "one of the very best fireworks displays I've ever seen.
"The display I saw tonight had many, *many* fancier fireworks than the ones used on the Fourth of July. Tonight there were fireworks that shot up, in three colors, a sort of planet, with a ring around it in another color; a firework that shot off a central band of white explosion and a sort of wheat-sheaf of fireworks in other colors both above and below the band; a firework that shot off hundreds of massive white streamers each of then exploded into five more small streamers. I go into this detail only to say how fancy and beautiful the whole thing was."
Park police estimated less than 100 people quickly gathered to watch from public space surrounding The Ellipse.
Cmon, the Republican's were out of the White House for eight years. Don't they deserve a nice party?
Small govt? Cutting taxes? HA! Shame on Republicans and "conservatives" alike. Shame on Liberals, too - INDEED, SHAME ON ALL HYPOCRITES.
If it were x42 hosting this dinner and having a "private" fireworks show, the Republicans -- and Freepers -- would be all over him for it.
Instead of wasting MY TAX DOLLARS on fireworks, how about a REAL tax cut!!!
Bush voter who is increasingly disappointed, regardless of how many times people mention the alternative to his being in office.
Oh, please. I can't stand hypocrisy. Can any of you defending this *honestly* tell me that you wouldn't be one of the ones screaming if the story was "Clinton White House spends 6 figures on fireworks display for State Dinner guests. Keeps public in the dark."?
Oh please, yourself.
Turning it around doesn't change a thing. Yes, I would be saying the same thing. Why would you ask such a thing? To prove your own hypocrisy, while unable to prove mine?
Well, the alternative to him being in office is water under the bridge. We need to start thinking about the alternative to him being in office after 2004. What I mean is, maybe we can find a better, more conservative Republican.
All it takes is one governor or senator to come forward and oppose illegal immigration, and Bush will not be renominated.
The Clinton China is set on tables in the State Dinning Room of the White House, Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2001, for the state dinner for Mexican President Vincente Fox. President Bush's culinary preferences are decidedly down-home: spicy meat steaming with the wood-soaked smoke of the fiery pit. But don't look for ribs and coleslaw when he gives his first state dinner Wednesday night: decorum trumps domestic, said the spokeswoman for the first lady, who is organizing the feast for Fox. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
DUH! So why WASTE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON THE FIREWORKS AT ALL?
You are making this to easy.
Because it's so darned easy to do when you have no conscience.
Why not backyard T-Ball?
Like I said, let's just have a good ol' trashy state dinner.. maybe serve some red kool-aid, some of Velma's "Out of the World" bologna casserole..Maybe watch an episode of Sanford and Son, and play a game of bones for entertainment. That's not how you host a state dinner.
Yes, I do make this easy. Good taste and etiquette is not hard to learn.
Our guys, no doubt, had the Reagan China.
A SIX FIGURE (taxpayer expense) fireworks show is needed for elegance and good taste?
Tell the truth, GOPyouth, your a Bush intern, aren't you?
They want to blast off some works for a meeting between two hemispheric giants as a celebration without causing a security nightmare in the most dangerous city in America and all these posters can think about is me, my money, my hurt feelings. Life ain't fair get over it. When you are the president, or dictator, you'll have plenty of time to show us how great you are. In fact, I'm a worthy cause, give Me your money because your car pollutes. Geesh, 12 trillion dollar economy and Bush can't throw a party. Liberals suck.
Sorry, but Bush is turning out to be exactly what I long believed he was: a favored feckless child. God Poppy must be near delerious from the joy of getting his little poppinjay in the White House, as if his own administration - which threw away the heritage of the "Reagan Revolution" wasn't enough. But then, Poppy as Veep, was David Rockefeller's "compromise" with Reagan all those years ago. Sad.
may have footed the bill
let's wait until all the facts are in....and even if we did, compare the cost of this dinner to any of Klinton's and you'll probably find this pales in comparison..if the money had been used for entertainment indoors instead, do you expect to have been invited too?
Lousy treatment of John Q. Public and our tax money.
Dear Mr. GW Bush -- that money y'all used el noche pasado was our money. Not yours.
You are begging the question. The question is why this expenditure was deemed appropriate in the first place.
The President has taste, along with his wife.
Sorry, but this is OTT. Such garish and wretched excess, such conspicuous consumption, may be impressive, but expenditures of this magnitude are frankly indecent and insulting not only to the taxpayers who footed the bill, but to any sensitive and discerning guest. It's about as far from "good taste" as you can get.
All it takes is $100 from one million Americans, and you've got $100 million -- more than the average presidential campaign gets, and more than enough to counter the effects of 'Big Money.'
There are 270 million Americans. Americans spend $100 a year on basic cable. They spend $100 a year on espresso and/or cigarettes. Come on, are you saying there aren't even one million patriotic Americans who can afford to sacrifice just $100 for a cause to save the country?
Well, if they can't afford to spend $100, how can they afford to lose their country?
If even just a million Americans can't be found to donate a mere $100 to the right cause, then we deserve whatever Big Money Contributors give us.
It's ridiculous that a handful of namby-pamby moderates with zero constituency are able to make the Republican Party jump through hoops, while millions of supposedly God-fearing, patriotic Americans seethe about being 'shut out' of the political process. The only thing that's shutting us out is our own sense of defeatism! Let's just sit back and wait for the Rapture, huh? And if you don't believe in the Rapture, then I guess you're just waiting for the Gestapo to take you away without a fight. Or what are you waiting for, that you always find an excuse not to lift a finger to defend the cause of liberty?
If I knew, I wouldn't have written, "Maybe we can find . . . . " Okay, let me act like the all-knowing field commander, without a shred of doubt. And I still don't know.
But this is how I envision the process should go:
1. We need to form some kind of organization -- maybe several organizations -- that will act in concert to oppose illegal immigration.
2. Rather than collect money and pass it on to candidates, these organizations will instead carefully examine candidates for their voting records, and inform members of who to donate their money toward. This will sidestep campaign spending limit problems.
3. All we need is a million people willing to donate $100 each, and we've got enough to wage a presidential campaign as big as what the Democrats or Republicans put on.
4. Our goal is takeover of the Republican Party. Weed out the moderates in the primaries, support the most conservative candidates in the elections. After the elections, of course, we'll be willing to work with the moderates, because we have no choice at that point. But before the elections -- we fight, just as they fight.
5. Form an ad hoc committee to identify possible presidential candidates to run in challenge to President Bush in for the 2004 Republican Party presidential nomination. Make the investigative process exhaustive and detailed, so that we don't learn about DUIs one week before the election.
6. Throw as much united support as we can behind that one candidate who emerges from the selection process, so that he can win the primaries. What we don't want is the conservative vote split among several candidates, so that they cancel each other out and a Dole-type walks away with the nomination as in 1996. In 2004, the Dole-type will be the President of the United States, and have a tremendous advantage. To topple him from the nomination, we must be united!
7. Stick the Democrat in the general election campaign as a supporter of illegal immigration as his means of demagoguery and vote-buying. Make normally Democrat voters realize that if the illegals get the power to vote, they'll suffer far more than rich Republicans.
Indeed, that'll be the strategy: our candidate is the anti-Republican Republican. That is, where the common defintion of a Republican is someone who plays golf at the country club, our definition is someone who actually believes in freedom and justice -- and in something higher than his own short-term material gain.
To sum up: the answer to 'Who?' is Us. WE have to set up a movement that can seek out the best candidate. In the past, we've waited for the best candidate to come to us, and so far he hasn't. In the future, we need to go out and find the candidate.
And remember, this isn't an impossible task. Remember, Bill Clinton was only governor of Arkansas, and virtually unknown on the national stage a year before he became President. Among the thirty or so Republican governors out there, it's quite possible that one of them has been quietly doing a spectacular job, and we can find him. Even in the most incompetent organizations, there are always a few stellar performers who don't get weeded out by the good old boy network. We need to find that guy, and in order to do that, we need to set up a process to find him. I hope we'll do that before 2004 rolls around, or we may not have a chance to affect elections for decades to come.
Free speech...buddy. (why don't we just "move along"?)
Would be nice to snag a job at the White House when I graduate this December. ;)
If the American taxpayer is intentionally not invited to watch an expensive fireworks display, for which he/she PAID, in the skies over America's capitol city, it is an insult to the little guy and NOT in the best spirit of America. It has the stench of European monarchies sequestered in the Palace of Versailles.
Further, my joy in Bush's winning the presidency is not to be taken for granted nor a license for more of the government waste practiced by Clinton or anyone else. We want Bush's NEW TONE in Washington. Part of that NEW TONE is greater respect for the hard-earned money of taxpayers.