Flashback: AP Slammed Bush's Extravagant Inaugural

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As for the idea of taking a single article from a single source about Bush's second inauguration, trying to compare it to one that is historic by any person's standards, and declare the 'librul media' myth yet again... is once again stupid.

Stopped reading the entire thread after this. There is nothing historic about Obama winning this election, other then it follows the historical pattern of one party winning easily when the President from another party has low ratings.

 

[microbial]

I think the Washington extravaganza party is more about "Kicking out W to the curb"

It's like a gigantic "Mission Accomplished" we finally get the SOBs out of our house.

Major Jubilation that W and his storm-troopers will be gone.

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/r...-it-s-spend-baby-spend

Not that there was ever any doubt about the liberal bias in the media, but this is pretty ridiculous. Slam Bush in 05 but not Obama in 09, when the economy is also completely trashed?

And you're surprised by this because.....??

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As for the idea of taking a single article from a single source about Bush's second inauguration, trying to compare it to one that is historic by any person's standards, and declare the 'librul media' myth yet again... is once again stupid.

Stopped reading the entire thread after this. There is nothing historic about Obama winning this election, other then it follows the historical pattern of one party winning easily when the President from another party has low ratings.

It takes a truly high level of ignorance to be able to say something like this.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So why bash Bush when he spend 4 time less the Obama spend? Can you give me a rational reason behind it other than MEDIA BIAS?

I can give you a rational reason. Bush was an unpopular president that barely squeaked out a victory, then claimed a mandate. Obama won by a very large margin. Plus, that there are reports claiming $40 million vs $160 million suggests that people are bashing Obama for this.

But if anything, the media bias runs the other way when it comes to reporting the "$160 inauguration". On one hand, you have the press who are running unattributed reports that the inauguration could cost up to $160 million including security. Never mind that they never tell you how they calculated that number. Or that they'd be just as justified in saying it could cost up to $320 million or $640 million. On the other hand, you had an inauguration that did cost $40 million excluding security.

Of course if you find a report that compares both with security included, the numbers are much closer. But why let actual facts get in the way of your outrage and indignation?

 

[NeoV]

as several people have already pointed out - the "Bush spend 40M" amount is way off base. The actual total, which is what should be compared to the amount being talked about for the cost of this week's events, is very close to Obama's.

/thread

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: NeoV
as several people have already pointed out - the "Bush spend 40M" amount is way off base. The actual total, which is what should be compared to the amount being talked about for the cost of this week's events, is very close to Obama's.

/thread

That gasping sound I hear is either the biggest collection of crybaby pussies in the history of the world or the last breaths of a dying party that's demographically and intellectually obsolete.

Might be a bit of both actually.

 

[daveymark]

change we can believe in?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

I'm sure they'd be lining up behind the Republican party, you know, the party that fought against Civil Rights

The votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Hmm 80%<63% and 82%<69%, yeah those damn republicans that stood in the way of the democrats on civil rights by voting a higher percentage FOR the Civil Rights Act than the democrats.
snip-

You should read up on 'Southern Democrats", "Northern Democrats", and the "Conservative Coalition". Southern Democrats were for all meaningful purposes a third political party, one that aligned with the Republicans to oppose civil rights legislation. The thinking of the South didn't change in the 70's, just the Southern Democrats dissolved into the Republican party, the party that most closely shared their values.

Eski,

Either I misunderstand what you're referring to when you say "most closely shared their values" (sounds like you're saying values about 'race', or your assertion is nonsensical and contradicted by the voting numbers given above.

So, back before the Souther Dems left for the Repub party, the Repub party voted in larger numbers for civil rights legislation than the Dem party (whose vote would contain those very same Southern Dems).

Maybe the Southern Dems votes dragged down the Dem votes, but still since the Repubs voted overwhelmingy for the civil rights legilation that should do nothing other than deter the Southern Dems from switching parties. If you're opposed to civil rights legislation, why would you switch to a party than approves it by 80%? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If the Southern Dems migrated to the Repub party because of some shared values, it certainly wouldn't be about race or civil rights.

Otherwise, talk of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas and civil rights legislation for Blacks the last 8 years is stupid. What civil rights legislation targeted at the Black community could there possibly be? Other than 'reparations' I haven't heard anything of the sort even mentioned in the last 7-8 years that I can recall.

Fern

This can serve as a response to both you and BigJelly. The problem you guys are both having is taking a single, highly politicized vote as being some sort of evidence against an extremely clear policy that existed for half a century. In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is frequently cited as the event that broke the back of the Conservative Coalition, so to use that vote as an evidence either way is awfully silly.

If you look at the breakdown by region you will see that the entire southern area voted against the Civil Rights Act, with the Southern Democrats being ever so slightly less racist than the Southern Republicans, and the Northern Democrats voting for it by about 10 points more than the Northern Republicans. Instead of looking at it by region, BigJelly just mashed together two parts of a party that really didn't belong together to make a dishonest point. The Northern and Southern Democrats were for all meaningful purposes two different parties. So while yes, the Republicans voted in higher percentages than Democrats for these issues, it's because Republicans controlled a hugely smaller percentage of the seats in the South. The seats they did control in the south were effectively unanimous in their opposition to civil rights.

If you look at the real voting numbers on all issues, you will see that the Southern Democrats and Republicans shared values more closely than the Southern Democrats did with Northern Democrats. Yes, civil rights included. Furthermore, if you read your history you will realize that since the New Deal these two groups had been working closely together to thwart the more liberal legislation promoted by Northern Democrats for decades, both social and economic. It's a two party system, and the realignment into Republicans had a great deal of reasons behind it. Limitation of domestic liberalization across all issues was a significant part of it.

If you are interested in learning more about this and have JSTOR access I can point you to some good articles that will make my points much better than I have.