Hmm..No, you seem to be utterly and completely wrong. Or you've been taking reading lessons from Sam. No, that's just rude, I shouldn't say things like that, I apologize.
The article does mention that the costs for the Obama inauguration are not entirely known. That fact, in and of itself, would seem to cast a bit of wonderment on the conservative talking point of how much more Obama's inauguration costs than Bush's. A point which you yourself have repeatedly parroted I might add. The major point of the article was a quite simple one. The numbers that are being floated originating from "conservative" circles (most commonly quoted at 142 or 160 million give or take) include costs for security. The comparisons to Bush's second inauguration, which have thus far usually accompanies such claims, do not include any security costs for his inauguration. It is really a rather simple case of comparing apples and oranges. There is no hatchet job in this one. I still don't like the idea of so much money being spent on the inauguration. But has there been a spewing of factually incorrect garbage from the bloviators upon "right" on this issue? Why yes, yes there has. Judah On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > No one knows what Obama's inauguration is going to cost until the books are > settled. The article, such as it is, is not an exploration of facts but a > rant about how awful those darn conservatives are. I agree that if we are > going to make comparisons, we need to compare the same things. I'll wait for > some enterprising reporter to dig up the actual costs for this event next > year, then we can see what the numbers look like. > > Furthermore, the shtick from MediaMatters ignores the obvious - that > comparisons are being made between the 2005 costs and the current costs > because Democrats complained so much about the 2005 costs - the nation is at > war, it's unseemly, etc. The nation is still at war, and we are in the > middle of a recession to boot, so it is only natural that people will draw > comparisons between the costs of the two events. > > And lastly, I'm not one for ceremony, but lots of people live for this kind > of stuff, so if we spend a little cash on the inauguration festivities, so > be it. > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Judah M wrote: > >> The real reason why it costs so much more? Surprise! It..err...doesn't >> actually cost much more. Probably just inflation really. >> >> http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top >> >> Turns out that it is a wonderful media case of apples vs oranges. The >> numbers being cited for Bush are about 42 million and for Obama as >> being about 160 million. Except for the fact that Bush's numbers don't >> include security costs and the numbers quoted for Obama do. >> >> The cost for Obama's inauguration without security (to enable a direct >> comparison with Bush's second inauguration)? 45 million. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:285475 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
