Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

The Cost of the Inauguration: A Cold Wind Blows

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 10:33
in

Over the next few years, we're going to see the traditional DC game of Political Chairs played by Republicans and Democrats, with fervently held opinions and outrages abandoned in favor of new, more convenient opinions and outrages.  It's a normal human thing to be captured by convenience, but Washington DC seems especially immune to the idea of categorical imperatives.

Two columns by Media Matters' Eric Boehlert (latest via Steve Benen) capture this "...aaaaand switch!" dynamic quite well.  In 2005, Boehlert was outraged at Bush's inauguration.

  • He wrote, "The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security." 
  • He emphasized a poll that showed Americans would have preferred a smaller inaugural party (did the Washington Post even bother doing one of those this time around?).
  • He attacked "the costly security overkill" which "clearly plays to Bush's political advantage by keeping terrorist threats at the top of people's minds."
  • He criticized the media for only reporting confirmed numbers, rather than using the speculative, uncomfirmed numbers that had been named in some places.
  • He puts "the real cost at closer to $70 million, instead of the media's preferred $40 million."

Flash forward to 2009 and Eric Boehlert is feeling the Change. 

  • Rather than criticizing the huge cost and unprecedented security of the 2009 inauguration, Boehlert attacks the media for using inadequate numbers for the 2005 inauguration, putting Obama's 2009 inauguration in a comparatively bad light.
  • After spending 2005 criticizing the media for not using the speculative, unconfirmed numbers cited in some places, Boehlert is suddenly aghast that the media is using speculative, unconfirmed (but entirely reasonable) numbers.
  • The "real cost" of Bush's 2005 inaugural has gone from "closer to $70 million" (Boehlert, 2005) to "$157 million" (Boehlert, 2009).
  • Not a word about security "overkill".

Mind you, neither of Boehlert's articles is really wrong, per se.  You can be outraged about the enormous cost of a party for a politician and outraged about the press' inability to understand the numbers involved.

But the difference between these two articles is certainly instructive about the sincerity of his outrage over unconfirmed numbers, the cost of an inauguration and security overkill.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

Republicans lack crediblity to complain

Submitted by superdestroyer on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 10:51.

AFter the Bush Administration ran up $5 Trillion in debt and after the Repubican controlled Congress tacked on pork laden earmarks on every single bill where they could, the Repubicans have no crediblity complaining about excessive spending.  Maybe back in 2001 if  Hastert, Frist, Bush, and Rove would have realize that a politicians word means something and that the internet puts everything at people'd fingertips, they would have worked harder to being conservative. But since Bush and Rove decided that policy did not need to have anything to do with public statements, the wasteful spending went on for six years.

Until the Repubicans find a way to regain any level of crediblity, they need to shut up at wasteful spending.  If they keep talking about it, all they do if remind people of the incompetence of the outgoing Bush Administration.

Strange choice

Submitted by undoctored on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 11:48.

 Why choose to underscore the cost of the Inauguration rather than its symbolism of a new beginning, the renewed  hope of a nation shaken to its roots by the catastrophic policies of the previous administration?  Why feel pettiness and envy because the President-Elect is receiving so much positive coverage? Get a grip on your emotions and delight in this like an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans.

Underwhelming Votes

Submitted by kenwd0elq on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 00:34.

Overwhelming approval?  Hardly.  A 52% - 46% vote is a win, but hardly a mandate, and overwhelming is the one thing it is NOT.  Against a candidate as weak as McCain, Obama should have outpolled him the way he out-SPENT him;  3-1 or more.

Last time I checked

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 00:49.

Bush was saying he had a mandate with 51% of the vote...

Not to mention, according to 270towin.com, he garnered nearly 10mil more votes. The last time that happened was during Reagan's re-election... so it's not like it happens each year.

The last I saw...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 05:38.

...ie yesterday, Obama had something like an 80% approval rating.

But then, he hasn't been sworn in yet.... 

Yawwwwwwn

Submitted by clarkpaton on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 01:33.

Symbolism is drivel.  Obama's promises are drivel.  He has promised the world to everyone, and will no doubt fail everyone.  There is no new beginning.  It's all in your head.  There is no renewed hope.  The previous administration has kept us safe.  Obama, the naive and inexperienced one, no doubt will be unable to deliver on anything other than the same failed leftist policies that characterized the failed presidency of Bill Clinton.  There is only positive coverage of Obama because the media created him.  I have a grip on my emotions, and I cringe at anything this political neophyte has to offer us.  No, there was no overwhelming mandate in support of "the Messiah." 

Please get a grip on your own unreal expectations of this disaster.

You have got to be kidding

Submitted by clarkpaton on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 01:40.

The debt only exists because of democrats voting for it.  pork laden earmakrs only exist because all congressment support it, on both sides of the aisle.  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae screwed up because of the idiotic policies that began during BILL CLINTON's presidency, all in the name of "equal opportunity lender" foolishness. 

Republicans have left their first principles.  However, democrats never had any desire to cut down on spending in the first place, and are, therefore, more idiotic.

There has been plenty of incompetence of the Bush Administration.  That extends to the inability to prosecute the war in Iraq with vigor, and the inability to hold the line on overall spending.  If a democrat were the prsident during the last 8 years, things would have no doubt been infinitely worse, as I fully expect things will be after Obama is unceremoniously deposed.

Republicans should be able to complain about costs

Submitted by superdestroyer on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 12:22.

Undoctored,

The Republican Party is in collapse and the Democratic Party is one dominant political party partially due to the inability of the Republicans to show any ability to be fiscal conservatives.  The Democratic Party crushed the Rep;ubicans on earmarks and wasteful spending.  Yet, now that the Democrats are back in power, no one is complaining about wasteful spending and the federal government is looking at a budget deficit between one and two trillion dollars.

If President Bush had done what he campaigned on and what he was suppose to do, there would not be a trillion dollar budget deficit.

Wrong target

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 12:28.

After the Bush Administration ran up $5 Trillion in debt and after the Repubican controlled Congress tacked on pork laden earmarks on every single bill where they could, the Repubicans have no crediblity complaining about excessive spending.

If the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans who voted for that expansion of spending complain about excessive spending, you should make that point again.  I'm not sure it has the same salience when you address it to a post of mine, though. 

From 2001-2006, Republican - Bush

Submitted by superdestroyer on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 12:54.

For the first six years of the Bush Administration too many conservatives and Republicans made excuses for the stupidity, incompetence, and laziness of the Bush Administration.  See how Republicans cheered tax cuts but did not follow up with budget cuts.  Look at how Republicans made excuses for new entitlements and pork programs.  Look at how pork barrelres like Ted Stevens and Tom Delay remained in positions of power when it was obivous that they were porking barreling spend thrifts.

UNtil Repubicans find something to talk about other than tax cuts, they will be seen as big spenders and the party that runs up huge deficits.  The Repubicans had six years to cut spending and they refused to even discuss it.  I guess naming more building for Mitch McConnell was more important.

+1

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 20:47.

And now they want to gripe about something. 

interesting comparison of Boehlert's views

Submitted by mnmod on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 22:30.

While the focus  is different, I don't think he really contradicts himself.   It seems to me an inaugeration for a first term should be much more elaborate than for a second term. And misrepresenting a story  (cost of Obama's inauguration)  is worse than ignoring a story (cost of Bush's inauguration.)   With my centerleft viewpoint, I had no difficulty agreeing with both his columns.

In any case, it should be

Submitted by tiffany and co on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 03:16.

In any case, it should be remembered that these sorts of reporting agencies and laws that brought such union funding  discount tiffany jewelry

In any case, it should be

Submitted by tiffany and co on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 03:18.

In any case, it should be remembered that these sorts of reporting agencies and laws that brought such union funding  discount tiffany jewelry

There has been plenty of

Submitted by jibran_pcc on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 00:53.

There has been plenty of incompetence of the Bush Administration.  That extends to the inability to prosecute the war in Iraq with vigor, and the inability to hold the line on overall spending.  If a democrat were the prsident during the last 8 years, things would have no doubt been infinitely worse, as I fully expect things will be after Obama is unceremoniously deposed.

 

internet domain registration

 

And misrepresenting a story 

Submitted by jibran_pcc on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 05:48.

And misrepresenting a story  (cost of Obama's inauguration)  is worse than ignoring a story (cost of Bush's inauguration.)   With my centerleft viewpoint, I had no difficulty agreeing with both his columns.

 

domain registration hosting