CE Week #18: “AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend”
By Rich Noyes
Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”
Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?
Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance [1], starting with the lede:
So you’re attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?
To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.
“This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform,” said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.
“Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn’t mean that style is going to be in a downturn,” agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.
And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. “Just say you’re doing it to help the economy,” chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.
That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.
To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece (as recounted in the MRC’s CyberAlert [2]), starting with a lede designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and including the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead:
President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year….
The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?
New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt’s inauguration during World War II.
“President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”…
Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association’s Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush — twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC’s reality TV show, “The Benefactor,” in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.
“As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the…devastation of the tsunamis,” he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.
Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: “Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities.”
Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.
Thank you, media. Once again you have displayed your pathetic attempt at showing only what you want to show. Just because you married Obama last campaign cycle doesn’t mean you should do this. I’m seriously so sick of the media. I don’t even watch the news anymore, and anything I read in the newspaper I read with suspicion. Why? I don’t know, maybe because the media sucks at reporting the news. They don’t report news; they report whatever makes the person or thing they like look better. In this case, Obama. There is no doubt in my mind the media won the election for Obama, or at the very least, it would have been much closer than it was. What does that tell us as American people? That an election for the national PRESIDENCY was swayed because of some stupid people thinking they’re so smart with their “journalism” skills. No, I don’t believe the government should control the media, but then again… where does it stop? In future generations, the media probably won’t even mention or show the candidate they dislike. That way, their man will win every time! Way to go media. We’re all so proud of all the stupid things you’ve done to our country.
By the way, check out this link and scroll about ½ the way down the page: http://howobamagotelected.com/
Connection: Media influence on the American public. The public is too ignorant to look into anything other the nightly news, and this results in lower political knowledge and bad election choices (in my opinion, Obama
). They hear that Palin has a $150,000 wardrobe, which is absolutely, 100% ridiculous, but they have no idea that Michelle Obama has a larger one. Why would they care?
Today in class I was hit with a rude realization, people are completely and utterly hypocritical! I’m sick of how something is acceptable if you agree with it, and that same thing is not acceptable if you are against it. I really think it is truly unfair how people have double standards! If Bush wanted to spend 40 million on his inauguration and the media has a problem with it, GREAT; But that same group of media has no right to turn around and glorify Obama four years later for doing the exact same thing because they like him more than they liked Bush. Sometimes I feel like I should be sitting in a Kindergarten class when I read some of this stuff. That’s how people act! I have always assumed that people’s parents raised them to have the same standards for everybody regardless of what political group they side with. I have no problem with Obama spending millions on his inauguration, heck I hope the students going have a great time. A new President is always something new and exciting and should be celebrated. After all I read an article the other week stating that the more people spend, the more stimulated our economy gets!
Connection:
This article reminds me of just the different ways people act to different people and hold them to different standards. Everyone deserves a fair chance, and unfortunately it seems like only the people who get one these days are the people who are willing to pay for it or cheat for it. People, the media especially, needs to stop being prejudice and be neutral like they are supposed to be!
This article really kind of made me mad. Not so much because of the amount being spent, but because it wasn’t ok in 2005 when Bush did it, but it is ok when Obama did it. The media is so fickle. I think that Both presidents should be wrong or both presidents should be right. Not saying that I know which one it is. I mean, the money could be spent on other more important things, but I think the article excerpt written by Lester is exaggerated. I highly doubt that complaining about the amount of money spent will stop it from happening. On the other hand, spending extravigantly in hard times should not be glorified either. It doesn’t seem appropriate to make everything, the main focus, about the finist fashion as opposed to the actual inaugeration party and what it celebrates. To be real honest, the people only pay attention to this to point fingers. I bet no pays attention to the money that is spent elsewhere, and for better causes. I guess, as a whole, this isn’t a lot of money. But it is scary that Obama spent more than Bush because if every president follows this pattern we could start talking about big money.
Connection: I would like to link this to the dicussions we have had in class about party stereotypes.”Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.” I think this is exactly what is happening.
I agree that at the time of Bush’s 2005 inauguration the festivities were relatively excessive. I do not think that they were so extreme that the inaugural festivities should have been canceled and cold chicken salad and plain pound cake should have been served. I think that with the current state of affairs calls for festivities to boost the morale of the country. With the economy going down the tubes, scratch that, with the economy already down the tubes, and no sign of an upturn any time soon a glitzy night on the town to celebrate the historic time we are going to begin. That is something to celebrate. The re-beginning of the same mistake, not so much something to celebrate. I really think that there is nothing like a little glitz to boost the morale of anyone. I believe that a night out does one good. I think that this extravagant ball and the rest of the events going on that weekend that will be infusing money into the economy so not only will it be a boost of morale it will be an economic boost as well. And everyone knows that’s what this country needs right now.
Connection: Economy-the inauguration will boost the economy now because it’s what we need. In 2005 for Bush’s second inauguration not only was it not something as historic it was also something that was extravagant for the time and rather wasteful.
This is absolutely ridiculous. $45 million on an inauguration ball and what happens if Barack Obama is elected again? But he’s not the only one who is spending this much, as the article said Bush spent $40 million on his party. As Kennedy once said, “do not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I think this quote definitely applies to how much presidents spend on welcoming themselves to the White House. Most people go to dinner when they get a promotion but I guess if you are elected President of the United States you should spend about $45,000,950.00.
Connection: As we have discussed in class the media has helped Obama greatly in getting elected to office. “Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.(Noyes)” And as we can see from this quote, the media will be showing the people that spending this much is wonderful, since we are celebrating an historic moment. As we know, having the people behind you(as president) will help you greatly getting things accomplished.
Wow. I love the media. They always seem to get away with flip-flopping opinions. But that could be because they aren’t going to bring negative attention like that to themselves. Only the unfortunate politicians that misspeak and have to work extra hard just to clear their names. But heck: It’s America isn’t it?
When I was reading this article, it reminded me of spending more money as the solution to the economic crisis. Those people may just be joking that it’ll help us if we let go of our inhibitions, but they aren’t far from the truth. That 45 million dollars will be going somewhere in America. It’ll help pay for services and things needed for the inauguration. So people will be employed to help, and they will get paychecks. Then they take those paychecks and buy things that employ other people, giving them paychecks. And this all works out in one lovely sort of circle. Everybody wins.
So follow their advice and don’t be stingy or let fashion suffer. That expensive outfit you buy could have helped some person working for that store buy dinner for her family because she wasn’t laid off. So just think about that for awhile. After you spend your money, it doesn’t just disappear. Other people use it, too (That’s why you should never put money in your mouth).
Connection: Kautzman has talked before about stimulating the economy by spending lots of money. And it just makes sense. I don’t really know if those people realize its validity, but it’s cool that their snobby opinions and ideas would help us, as a country, in the long run.
You know what? I think that Obama has the right to throw a big fancy party if he wants to. It really is what this country needs. The entire moral of the country is way down, and this inauguration can act as on giant pick me up. Why is it that Bush didn’t need to have such a fancy inauguration? Because he was starting his second term. There was nothing special about his re-election. Obama is the first black president that this country has ever seen, and personally, I think that that is cause for celebration. Obama was chosen specifically by the people. He got over more than 100 electoral votes than McCain, and he got about 54% of the popular vote. Now yes, it does seem slightly like the media is having double standards, but what we all have to realize is, is that Bush’s inauguration was 4 years ago. A lot has happened in those few years. Economists are now saying that we need to pump more money into the economy to get it rolling again, and that is what this inauguration is doing. In my opinion, I think that this $45 million that they’re spending is a good thing. They’re going to have to pay for food, and decorations, and music, etc. Then all those people involved in it will get paid, and then they’ll have more money, and they will spend that money. It’s a win-win situation the way I look at it.
Connection: Liberal Media Bias- many people think that the media is heavily skewed towards the left. And they are probably right. The media is rarely unbiased, and they usually favor the left, with the exception of Fox News. I wish that we could have unbiased reporting, but I doubt that that will ever happen, because every reporter wants to have their opinion heard.
Wow, the media just grosses me out sometimes. And the words hypocrite, two face, back stabber, and some other names come to mind…Of course this is a historic election in welcoming our first Democrat African American to the white house. However, notice I said Democrat. It would have been interesting to see what the reactions of the press to the inauguration of a black Republican president would have been. The problem I think here is not the amount of money being spent (which still is kind of sickening in it’s own way), but rather the hypocrisy at the core of it all. One year the press exclaims, “Oh my goodness, think how many African babies that could have been saved,” when only a few years later, they humorously joke, “Just say you’re doing it to help the economy.” Have you also noticed that the press will shine the Democratic candidate in the best light possible, while they heap the muck onto the Republican? How about the commercials where they pick the best picture of the Democratic candidate only to show the Republican candidate picking his teeth while wearing a comical grimace? How about all the air time that they spend on a Democratic candidate while forcing in a few minutes for the Republican at the end? Does there seem to be a conspiracy of the press here? Just wondering…
Connection: Media bias. We hear what the press wants us to hear. The press has a huge outrageous influence on what we end up thinking.
I honestly think this is disgusting. I support Barrack Obama and all, but $45 million spent on a party, even in time of war and economic decline? It seems almost unpatriotic. It seems to me that President Obama is more of a celebrity than he is a government man. You read through any of the gossip rags and fashion magazines, and there is guaranteed to be at least one article about the Obama’s, whether it be about their new puppy or about Michelle’s clothes. I don’t know if this is just because of the times that we now live in, or if it is from something just a little bit more sinister. After all, Obama is from the corrupted state of Illinois. I also wonder how the celebrity factor that is being applied to President Obama is going to affect his performance in office.
I think that it is funny to look at the two articles from the AP side by side. Not only is the financial situation worse, but the national security situation is worse, too, and yet President Obama is getting support for throwing an extravagant ball rather than being conservative, while Bush was torn apart for it. He really was unpopular.
Connection: Just today I read an article in the new Seventeen magazine, and there were three hole pages dedicated to talking about how Obama wanted to replace the bowling alley in the white house with a basketball court. It was absolutely rediculous, but then again so is everything else that they publish in those magazines.
I was stunned to learn about all the things that Bush’s $40 million inauguration could have provided for instead: “Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami…. A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year….” (Rich Noyes). But if you think about it, Obama’s $45 million inauguration could buy all that AND THEN SOME. It was inspiring to learn that great presidents like Roosevelt and Wilson did not care to host such extravagant festivities, preferring instead to serve cold chicken salad and pound cake. It was weird to read about fashion crises and the idea that you can “just say you’re doing it to help the economy.” I agree that our new president should be satisfied with the cold chicken salad and pound cake during this difficult war period. Even then, however, it would still probably cost lots of money to pay the secret service to facilitate such a modest dinner. Where does the madness end? For all that I’ve learned from this article, Obama’s inauguration better be worth the price. I know many people are extremely excited about this event (especially our fellow students on their way to D.C. starting early tomorrow morning), so let’s hope they enjoy themselves despite the frigid physical AND economic climate.
Connection: Economy & Expectations. We’ve been reading a lot about appropriations and such, and in class today we learned about the 7,000 page budget proposal in the West Wing. It’s strange to think that extravagant inaugurations could fill a good number of pages in such a report. Will inaugural spending help or hurt the economy in the long run? It feels like it will hurt more than help, but I can’t pretend to be an expert. We’ll just have to pay attention to the “financial pundits” who think they can break everything down into simpler terms. There’s a strong chance that the economy probably won’t fix itself entirely during Obama’s term, but I guess there’s a good chance that he could make a few improvements here and there. Only time will tell, especially if Obama decides to seek re-election in 2012.
I don’t think it’s surprising that this hypocrisy exists. Though I think it is unfair of the media to single out Bush for “extravagance”, it makes sense in a way. Bush was very unpopular. He led the nation into an unpopular war, and his support continued to go downhill. The media eagerly grabbed at this and fueled the publics’ anger by citing Bush’s so called “excessiveness”. The festivities were uncalled for, they said, and the money could be spent elsewhere. The media was generally unsupportive of Bush, so it made sense to turn the public away from him.
But do they cite Obama? No, they don’t. It is certainly not fair, but I also don’t think it would make sense to actually criticize him. At this moment, the nation is enamored with Obama. To cite him for “spending too much” would be a slap in the media’s own face – the public would be fierce, saying he deserves the festivities because of the historic nature of the election. I also think it makes sense because it is, perhaps, fueling the economy. Masses of people are spending because of plane tickets, hotel rooms, and Obama memorabilia. I think the optimism will also help the country in its economic state.
Question: Because Obama had so much money for his campaign, is he spending some of it on the festivities? Or is that money specifically for campaigns?
Connection: Media Bias
As we have learned, the media may or may not have a liberal bias; however, in this case, it is evident that it does. The media took advantage of President Bush’s disapproval ratings and escalated it.
I heard that Beyonce is playing at, president elect, Oboma’s inauguration. If that’s the case, the celebration is definitely worth every penny. And who really cares what the media decides to label and/or victimize? How could anyone even be thinking of something like that when a historical performance by Beyonce is right around the corner? I mean, who really even cares that Oboma is going to be the next president of the United States? Obviously everyone is going to the inauguration to see Boyonce.
If Beyonce performed at George W. Bush’s inauguration, a critical comparison of spending habits wouldn’t be necessary. Obviously Oboma’s going to spend more! He has Beyonce…
Connection: Equal opportunity. The United States provides everyone with the freedom of equal opportunity. Supposedly, everyone is provided with the option, or right, to become president of the United States…or Beyonce. (I’d rather be Boyonce)
In response to Felica Soderstrom’s comment:
I definitely agree with the fact that the media is being very unfair to Bush about the whole ‘money spent on the inauguration ball.’ However, I think what they might be talking about is that now it’s okay for Barack Obama to spend even more because our country is failing economically and spending that much money stimulates jobs and employs people, causing them to then take home some kind of a paycheck. And it’s easy for people to only pay attention to the fashion that is worn at this extravagant ball, because that is what people know about. Most people do not know the true celebration of the inauguration ball, so the incredible fashion that people wear is the only thing they see. Fashion has become such a big part of today’s society that sometimes it’s the only thing people notice or pay attention to. It’s true that the media probably doesn’t pay attention to money tat is spent on other things, even for better causes, because like Mr. Kautzman always says “if it bleeds, it leads.” Most people don’t care if Obama spent 50 thousand dollars on saving the beluga whales (hypothetically) but spending 45 million on an inauguration ball!!! AHH scandal!!!!
I agree with Malaika, the media always seems to get away with flip-flopping opinions. And they get away with it because they will not bring negative attention to themselves. It makes no sense to put down the republicans when Bush’s inauguration had cost around 40 million dollars and to support Obama’s inauguration when it is projected to cost around 45 million dollars. The media just twists the current events to what they think will interest the people.
I think that the inauguration of the president should be a large celebration every time. It is a peaceful transition of power. And I think that the United States could really use a moral boost with our current situation. With “the worst economic climate in three generations” and the two wars we are involved in, there needs be some kind of uplifting moment for the people. This is a historic election with the first African American to be President, and so gives reason to spending extra money on the inauguration. Spending more money is supposed to help the economy right now. An extravagant ball and large celebration will not only be an uplifting moment for the people, it will also help out our economy.
In response to Johanna Stafford, I do not agree that spending 45 million dollars on the inauguration ball is all that ridiculous. I do believe that is was Obama that was able to raise about that much within a single month during the election campaign. What would happen if Obama got reelected? He would probably spend about the same amount of money give or take a few million. Why? Because that is the kind of amount that politics usually requires. We are in fact celebrating a historic moment, so this occasion makes a certain degree of sense even in with the current state of the nation and economy. In one of the previous articles on this blog site, an author talked about, I think it was, holiday commodities that were exported from some small town in a foreign country. This town’s biggest customer was the United States, so when we did not purchase these commodities this holiday season, that town among many others took a big hit. The services and products used to create the inauguration ball will certainly benefit the companies that provide those services and products. I also recall in that same article I mentioned earlier that the economy needed us to spend, spend, and spend.
In response to Johanna:
I feel you have omitted some thought in this response. When Bush spent $40 million that was his SECOND inaugural ball, so I don’t see your logic behind the “$45 million on an inauguration ball and what happens if Barack Obama is elected again?” statement. He will probably spend less on that ball because there won’t be the need to stimulate the economy as there is now, if all of Obama’s plans go accordingly. If they do he will more than likely be serving another term, in my opinion. I honestly don’t see the huge problem with the cost of the inaugural ball. It is, for many, a once in a lifetime opportunity, twice at the most, but it should still be important because it’s not guaranteed that it will ever happen again. To use an example similar to yours, which I apparently lack your creativity to be able see the connection or relevance to the remainder of your statement, I’m sure that JFK planned on serving all eight of his possible years of service, not three. I feel that in times like these it is important to celebrate while you have the opportunity because you may not get it again. So I say go for it Obama, celebrate like you’ll be assassinated tomorrow because who knows if its true or not?
In response to Maddy Copus:
Maddy… you’re missing the point of the article. It’s not about whether this inauguration is the start of a historic time – everyone agrees it is. It’s about the media and how flippin’ liberal they are. When Obama spends the same amount of money (actually, even more) on his inauguration, there’s not one article about the same thing Bush did in 2005? Not one? Isn’t that a little bit biased? Think about it… with Obama’s inauguration, we could have purchased “Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.” Or we could have bought “200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.” Actually, we could have bought more of each since Obama is spending even more than Bush! Plus, the economy is not going to heal with $45 million dollars or so. Look at the financial bailout… $750+ BILLION dollars and that’s only helping a little bit. So tell me, do you really think spending such an exorbitant amount of taxpayer money on one event, without any of the same criticism of the media from four years ago, is going to help the economy and is expected since he’s a different race (I thought race doesn’t matter)? Or is it just an excuse to make sure Obama is God just once more?
In response to Cole Zeigler
This really is more of a ‘ditto-that’ than a reply but whatever. I do completely agree that the media has a huge impact on what people wear, say, and do. We have been told that ‘the media doesn’t tell you how to think about something, but rather what to think about.’ And truthfully I think the media only pokes at people they dislike. As I stated in my response, if the media wants to pick at someone, they better not turn around and hale somebody else for doing the exact same thing. Unlike Cole, I’m not completely against Obama, yet. And the fact isn’t who is for who; the fact is that the media displays unfair representation and should be held liable and have to fix it. In a way, the media is monopolizing airtime representation of Presidential candidates. If I’m not mistaken, I thought monopolization was illegal. Maybe I exaggerated a bit when I compared the media to a monopoly, but vaguely that’s exactly what is happening. It’s not fair when the media wants to make someone look so good that in the process they make the opponent look so much worse than they would have.