Much of the $40 million spent on Bush's 2005 inauguration was spent on security and much of the money spent then was privately raised but it AP reported the Bush expenditures as exorbitant. $160 million v. $40 million. So what is your point?

 

 

I'm not sure what issue is being addressed in this thread, so I don't know how to respond.

 

Is the issue that Obama is spending $160M?

 

Or is the issue the media?

Here's the first article I found in doing a cursory search.

 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/19/content_10683420.htm

 

You can see by the unprecedented level of security that this will dwarf all other inaugurations.

I'm not sure what issue is being addressed in this thread, so I don't know how to respond.

 

Is the issue that Obama is spending $160M?

 

Or is the issue the media?

I believe that it is both. Spending four times as much for the 2009 inauguration as for the 2005 inauguration feeds the perception of many that this is more of a coronation than an inauguration. The fact that the media criticized Bush's $40 million 2005 inauguration but are simply joining in the celebration of their candidate's victory this year is just further evidence of the their bias.

I believe that it is both. Spending four times as much for the 2009 inauguration as for the 2005 inauguration feeds the perception of many that this is more of a coronation than an inauguration. The fact that the media criticized Bush's $40 million 2005 inauguration but are simply joining in the celebration of their candidate's victory this year is just further evidence of the their bias.

 

 

They're not mutually inclusive issues though. Shouldn't they be examined separately?

Here's the first article I found in doing a cursory search.

 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/19/content_10683420.htm

 

You can see by the unprecedented level of security that this will dwarf all other inaugurations.

Are you telling me Obama couldn't have put a limit on how many people we're to be allowed at this? After all, HBO is letting you watch it free, or you can go to one of the movies theaters to watch on the silver screen.

They're not mutually inclusive issues though. Shouldn't they be examined separately?

If you want two separate threads covering Obama's inauguration, then you have the power to make it so.

 

However, I do not think having two threads will change the content of the posts one iota and the two issues are related, IMO. The media is showing that it is unwilling to hold Obama to the same standards to which it held Bush and Obama is acting accordingly. Right now, Obama can do no wrong in the media's eyes and this will likely be the longest honeymoon that our media has ever allowed a newly elected president to enjoy.

What happend to Change? I thought Obama was going to start getting America out of debt? Not contribute to the damage already done?

Are you telling me Obama couldn't have put a limit on how many people we're to be allowed at this? After all, HBO is letting you watch it free, or you can go to one of the movies theaters to watch on the silver screen.

 

Part of the cost is due to GWB declaring a security emergency from 1.17 to 1.21. I doubt Obama can overrule that nor would he.

 

Secondly, I highly doubt the President is going to tell the professionals how much security there should or should not be.

Who is the source for this figure?

 

I've read that its not an apples to apples comparison. The Bush figure did not include security while the Obama costs do include security.

 

For you guys that like to bash the media, I'm surprised you take the first thing you read as THE TRUTH.

 

Lets do some more digging.

Who is the source for this figure?

 

I've read that its not an apples to apples comparison. The Bush figure did not include security while the Obama costs do include security.

 

For you guys that like to bash the media, I'm surprised you take the first thing you read as THE TRUTH.

 

Lets do some more digging.

The comparison of the AP's coverage of the Bush 2005 inauguration to the AP's coverage of The One's 2009 inauguration is most certainly an apples-to-apples comparison.

I'm not sure what issue is being addressed in this thread, so I don't know how to respond.

 

Is the issue that Obama is spending $160M?

 

Or is the issue the media?

 

That was my question, too.

Right wing extremist make me laugh :lol:

Are you telling me Obama couldn't have put a limit on how many people we're to be allowed at this? After all, HBO is letting you watch it free, or you can go to one of the movies theaters to watch on the silver screen.

 

You know I think some on here lose the fact that for a big part of our country, this is historical and "a long time coming."

 

http://martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=17391&back=archives

 

The best part of this article is the interview with Thurman Echols. I know Thurmon and he is a colleague of mine. His thought:

 

“Martin Luther King Jr. once said he had a dream that one day his four children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Echols said. “I think we have seen that coming full circle with (Barack) Obama being elected.

 

Is enough for me to ponder how someone else views this inaugauration, whether you agree or disagree with the president being sworn in.

Right wing extremist make me laugh :lol:

Did the left wing extremists (the Associated Press) make you laugh in 2005, when they criticized President Bush for spending less than one-third as much on his inauguration?

The comparison of the AP's coverage of the Bush 2005 inauguration to the AP's coverage of The One's 2009 inauguration is most certainly an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Isn't that where there is difference in the 2 issues that Rockmom has mentioned?

 

Clyde was pointing out the costs may not be apples to apples and your reply is about the media coverage (which is probably a very fair assessment).