Again, I recommend that you read the information provided in this thread. The origninal figures of $160,000 and $40,000 are not an apples to apples comparision, as the $40,000 does not have figured in some of the expenses that the $160,000 does. Make them represent equal things and I would be happy to make a comparision. To do otherwise would lead one to incorrect conclusions.

I have read what has been posted. In fact, I pointed out that the $40 million figure did not include the $17 million+ cost of security, which was cited in the 2005 AP article. Nothing included in anything posted does anything to diminish the double standard applied to the 2005 inauguration cost to Obama's inauguration cost. Most conservatives did not criticize the costly Bush inauguration - liberals did. Now that a left wing president has been elected, and expensive inauguration celebration is perfectly acceptable to those same people.

 

Unless somebody can demonstrate that the cost of Bush's inauguration exceeded the cost of Obama's inauguration, which would justify the liberal criticism in 2005 and their silence in 2009, I will continue to believe that this is yet another double standard being applied by the liberal mainstream media in this country. Do you have such numbers to make that case?

I have read what has been posted. In fact, I pointed out that the $40 million figure did not include the $17 million+ cost of security, which was cited in the 2005 AP article. Nothing included in anything posted does anything to diminish the double standard applied to the 2005 inauguration cost to Obama's inauguration cost. Most conservatives did not criticize the costly Bush inauguration - liberals did. Now that a left wing president has been elected, and expensive inauguration celebration is perfectly acceptable to those same people.

 

Unless somebody can demonstrate that the cost of Bush's inauguration exceeded the cost of Obama's inauguration, which would justify the liberal criticism in 2005 and their silence in 2009, I will continue to believe that this is yet another double standard being applied by the liberal mainstream media in this country. Do you have such numbers to make that case?

 

I was certainly wrong about the totals. As I was typing them, I kept thinking to myself..."wow...that's low! Are we really complaining about this?" I attribute it to cold brain syndrome this morning, as I made previous posts in this forum with the correct reported totals.

 

As for the double standard issue, I think that is in a separate thread. This one was for the appropriate expenditure, not perceived hypocrisy.

I was certainly wrong about the totals. As I was typing them, I kept thinking to myself..."wow...that's low! Are we really complaining about this?" I attribute it to cold brain syndrome this morning, as I made previous posts in this forum with the correct reported totals.

 

As for the double standard issue, I think that is in a separate thread. This one was for the appropriate expenditure, not perceived hypocrisy.

Thread title: "Is it appropriate for Obama to have such a large inauguration?"

Thread description: "In a full blown recession for someone who wanted accountability with how our money is spent, should Obama have such a large inauguration?"

 

I love how some people want to conveniently apply such strict interpretations to thread starters to avoid addressing some of the most obvious issues. A more correct narrow interpretation would be that any discussion of the 2005 inauguration is off limits because neither Bush nor his inauguration was mentioned anywhere in either the thread title or description.

 

However, I doubt that JD intended to limit debate in such ridiculously narrow terms.

 

The original issue was and is whether Obama's 2009 inauguration was appropriate. Comparing the 2009 inauguration to previous inaugurations and commenting on the double standard being applied are either both relevant or both irrelevant to that discussion.

I've seen estimates of 1.5 million to 2 million in attendance yesterday. That is far in excess of the previous record of 1.2 million in 1965 and between 5x and 7x the total inaugural attendance in 2005. Given that fact, I don't know how you do the inauguration "on the cheap", without irresponsibly neglecting the costs for managing such a crowd safely.

In a full blown recession for someone who wanted accountability with how our money is spent, should Obama have such a large inauguration?

No!

As I said, if Obama was a Republican we wouldn't see the media slobbering all over themselves every time they mention his name.

 

If Obama were a republican he wouldn't have been elected. they are celebrating his ideas, not his party. If he were a republican his policies would be different.

No!

 

I'm with you:thumb: