In her new article today, my girl Ann (Coulter) has a collection of comments from the New York Times about the inauguration [slightly edited]. They’re quite eye-opening:
- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama’s inauguration today.
- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama’s jewel-toned outfit and somebody else’s glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank’s mare?
- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout “Whoopee!” or “Shame!” about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
She then lets the cat out of the bag:
Boy, talk about raining on somebody’s parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
Nice one, Ann!
But Reagan’s inauguration (which, incidentally, got 4 million more viewers than Obama’s) wasn’t the only one whose opulence was criticized by the liberal MSM. To find another example, one only needs to rewind to January, 2005: the second inauguration of George W. Bush. Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center recalls the caterwauling of the media upon learning that this inauguration cost approximately $40 million:
ABC focused on how “some,” and AP on how “many,” are upset by a “lavish” inaugural in the midst of a war. ABC anchor Terry Moran teased at the top of Sunday’s World News Tonight: “In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?” Geoff Morrell proceeded to relay the complaints of one anti-war activist and a rich sports owner who had voted for Bush. Without mentioning how FDR was near-death at the time, Morrell contrasted Bush with how “during World War II Franklin Roosevelt opted not to have a parade or a party—just a White House swearing in followed by a small luncheon of chicken salad and pound cake.”
The AP headlined a Thursday night AP dispatch: “Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration.” [A quick lesson in liberal media speak: If a newscast or article says “many think” or “some say,” they're really talking about themselves] […]
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. [!]
- Two years’ salary for the Mets’ new center fielder Carlos Beltran, or all of pitcher Randy Johnson’s contract extension with the New York Yankees.
Weeks ago, the inauguration and its accompanying costs were considered a given, an historic ceremony with all the pomp, pageantry and celebrations that the nation had come to expect every four years. […]
The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?
We’re still waiting for ABC News to interview people complaining about Obama’s extravagant day. And we're still waiting for an AP writer to suggest President Golden Calf should have spent his inauguration money as a down payment for the $1 trillion deficit he’s so excited about.
And I guess if we wait a little longer, then ... well, we’ll still be waiting!
I did find some sites that insisted that the $40 million price tag on Bush’s 2005 inauguration did not include security and other services, and that it would have come to around the same amount. But even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, this is true, it still does not excuse the media’s double standard: Bush’s extravagance was harshly condemned; Obama’s was giddily celebrated. Who else besides the Wall Street Journal acknowledged the record-breaking number of private jets at Obama’s inauguration, let alone criticized it.
So, let’s review the liberal logic problem of the day folks:
An inauguration for a Republican president costing a lot of money = bad
An inauguration for a Democrat president costing the same or possibly 4 times more = good
Any questions?
To sum up: There’s only one way to explain the liberal MSM's criticism of Bush in 2005 but not Obama’s in 2009: They hated Bush, hated his re-election, and hated the fact that Bush-supporting Americans were celebrating. But they love Obama, love his election, and love the fact that Obama-supporting Americans were celebrating.
In both cases, they were not acting as objective reporters, but rather as role-players and history-makers in the both events: one they actively attempted to ruin, and one they actively cheerled for.
In both cases, they have abdicated their journalistic professionalism in exchange for subjective and emotion-based news commentary.
Cross-posted at http://VocalMinority.typepad.com “The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary”
Recent Comments