Bush told us to kiss his ASS regarding $40 mil 2004 inauguration. CNN says Obama must be "careful."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Keeping protesters out of the Bush 2004 inauguration: http://flickr.com/photos/nickcalyx/2366826072/

Obama inauguration could take on subdued tone

(CNN) -- Millions of people are expected to go to Washington to celebrate Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20, but with a troubled economy and pocketbook issues on the mind, the president-elect must be careful to set the right tone.

President Bush raised a record $42.8 million dollars for his second inauguration, and according to Public Citizen, more than 90 percent of the donations to that ceremony were from executives or corporations.

But this year, some say throwing a multimillion-dollar party would be unseemly in a time when crash, bailout, and foreclosure fill the economic headlines.

"A lot of it is about tone and making sure that the celebrations that do take place are not over the top, that they don't appear to be insensitive to the pain people have right now," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The inaugural committee for Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to make sure the ceremony underscores the incoming administration's "commitment to change business as usual in Washington."

The Presidential Inaugural Committee has limited individual contributions to $50,000. There is no law restricting the size of donations, but in the past, inaugural committees have set contribution limits as high as $250,000.

The PIC said it will not take contributions from corporations, political action committees, current federally registered lobbyists, non-U.S. citizens or registered foreign agents.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/26/inauguration/index.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. (shrug) Standard Villager-speak.

[onenote]

2. he should and will be careful

There is a world of difference between now and January 2005. Then, unemployment was dropping and had reached its lowest level since 9/11. Now, its increasing like crazy and is higher than its been in at least 15 years. The stock market was fluctuating at around 10,500 then and appeared to be in striking distance of the then historic high. Now its struggling to get back to 9000 after dropping over 6000 points from its peak.

Obama has repeatedly,and accurately, characterized the current situation as the most dire financial crisis since the great depression. Of course he's going to have a more subdued inauguration than chimpy did, or other recent presidents.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Of course, "careful" in your mouth doesn't mean the same as "careful" in the Villagers' mouths.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

4. Agreed, but there were a number of other issues in 2004...

...and Bush, in a nutshell, said "screw this, I want my party." He didn't cut back on ANYTHING.

And while the media reported on it, he basically said "Fuck off" and the media responded with "OK, sir."

Later, of course, he gave up a few rounds of golf "out of respect for the troops," and the media reported his self-sacrifice in glowing terms.

So yes, Obama will proceed with the current economy and world situation in mind, whereas Bush proceeded with making sure that he got everything he wanted. And no matter how frugal Obama might be, it will be interesting to see how the media covers the event.

[Demeter]

5. I Don't Think Obama Has to Feed His Ego Like Bush Does, Anyway

I'm not worried.

[CatWoman]

6. yup

If one has to have the presidential seal embossed on each and every item of clothing, it's a sure sign that he or she has ego issues.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

7. Remember the boots?

:puke:

[XOKCowboy]

8. You know any good wife or mother would have taken one look at those boots and said...

"Good Gawd you're not going to wear those things are you? No go change now!"

What an idiot.

[a kennedy]

9. ditto to that....

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[w4rma]

10. W. looks like a huge dork in that picture. (nt)

[Arkansas Granny]

12. The boots were bad, but I thought the socks were even worse.

I don't even want to think what he has on his undies.

[Uzybone]

13. What an ugly family

every last one of them. Scum.

[Mudoria]

16. Sorry, some of the women look quite attractive....

[Clio the Leo]

14. Yep, that's OUR job. ;-) NT

[Vinca]

11. On the other hand, spending is what keeps the economy humming along.

I'm sure DC caterers, waiters, security, valets, hotels, restaurants, etc., will benefit, as will any tax revenues that might land on the city. The trick is to not be flashy and in your face.

[Beacool]

15. There's a big difference.

The economy is in the tank now and there's a question of perception. People may think that while millions are either unemployed or about to lose their jobs, Obama "wastes" millions of dollars to celebrate himself. Not saying it's fair, but times are tough and austerity is required. I still remember how Nancy Reagan was criticized for ordering new china for the WH in the midst of economic turmoil, even though the china set was paid by private donations.

[Batgirl]

17. Interesting piece from back in the day re: fawning press coverage of the 2005 inaugural excess

by Eric Boehlert at Salon:

This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans -- 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans -- would have preferred a "smaller, more subdued" inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush's overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on -- a phenomenon the press ignored.

For the media, simply reporting on the cost of the inauguration proved to be a challenge. Most major outlets stuck to the lower, albeit still unprecedented, figure of $40 million, which the Presidential Inaugural Committee said it hopes to raise from private donors. But a more accurate figure may be $50 million. That's the amount cited by the Washington Times (which is plugged in to GOP circles). But even that number doesn't take into account the nearly $20 million that's being spent for security, putting the real cost at closer to $70 million, instead of the media's preferred $40 million.

>>snip<<

The press's timidity toward the White House has been on constant display since the election. In selecting Bush late last month as its Person of the Year, Time, which devoted eight stories and 17,000 words to toasting Bush in that issue, seemed in awe that a Republican wartime president, who once boasted approval ratings in the 70s, was able to defeat a liberal from Massachusetts in the election. And contrary to dispatches from the campaign trail about how Bush had repeated the same vague stump speech over and over again throughout the fall, Time insisted, "Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity" (emphasis added).

Playing catch-up, Newsweek's Inauguration Eve cover story this week was equally fawning, insisting that contrary to what readers may have read or suspected, Bush is "hands-on, detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men." He's a commander in chief who "masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes" and who "digs deep into his briefing books." According to whom? Bush's closest "aides" and "friends," of course.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration/

[caraher]

18. But to a huge extent this is not about Obama

The record crowds are about a people's celebration, not one man's ego. Nobody wanted to be there for *'s bash; in this instance, Obama could not keep the crowds from coming if he wanted to. There are aspects of the official celebration he can and I expect will moderate, but the press lecturing him to "be careful" smells like a tiny piece of a long-term sniping campaign against him.