According to a Washington Post article, the Bush Administration is breaking with existing precedent and refusing to reimburse DC nearly $12 million for the additional costs of inaugural security (of the more than $17 million expected to be spent by the city). DC has been told to take the money out of Homeland Security grants already provided to DC, except those have all been earmarked for other uses.

The URL for the Post story is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6810085/ (sorry, I can't make it live, there's something funny with my Explorer settings and I am still trying to figure out what.)

The real kicker for me is that, as far as I can tell, in the 3 1/2 years since 9/11 almost nothing has been done by the federal government to make the Capitol a safer place - sure we have ugly Jersey barriers around federal buildings, but there has been absolutely no concern showed for the residents of the city, or the surrounding communities. Now my tax dollars are supposed to fund the king's coronation? Give me a break!

Of course, there could be no way this could be retaliation for voting Kerry, could it?

duplicate; delete

[ January 11, 2005, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Due to popular demand, here's a link to the original article.

D.C. Charged for Inauguration

So much for the phony War on Terra®. Is there any doubt left that if there were a real war on terror, the money would not have been in a slush fund for the coronation parties?

Credit where credit is due:

Let them eat yellowcake.

So why couldn't the district just say "Sorry, we won't be providing any security as we can't afford it. It's up to the Inaugural Committe to arrange their own security".

I think that might free up funds real quick. And get Bush a little black eye in the process

Unfortunately, the Occupied Territory of the District of Columbia has a responsibility to participate in the security affairs, as it as jusridiction over the streets to be used for the parade, as well as the obligation to protect its citizens (over 500,000 of us, I believe). What is truly galling about this is that New York and Boston each requested, and received, $50 million for security assistance during the national conventions.

On another note, the city is spending $3 million on constructing reviewing stands? Let evenyone stand at eye level... or pay for it themselves. I'm getting tired of paying obscene taxes and having every bill going through City Council up for review by Congress. Congress needs to recognize that there is NO reason to deny an area with a larger population than Wyoming (the home state of our V.P.) the right to have a say on the important issues of our day, other than the revolting political issue of keeping more Democrats out of power.

I was flipping channels last night and thought I heard that it was going to cost spectators to watch from the sidewalks...is this true?

Unfortunately, I now work in Georgetown, so I don't get the day off but must navigate to/from work.

I used to work in the "restricted zone" and would have the day off. Last inaugural, I went with a bunch of "bears" to the National Zoo to see the new pandas. It was great - they came down the hill, and as the zoo was empty, we had plenty of docents to answer any question we could come up with while watching these interesting creatures!

"... cost spectators to watch...?"

I doubt it, though spectators wil have to go through security to get a place near the coronation.

Edited to add: you're right. Spectators will have to pay to stand on a public sidewalk.

Interested out-of-towners can listen to the MPD police calls.

Metropolitan Po lice Department (MPD) police scanner online

[ January 19, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Tell them to hold the parade somewhere else.

Yeah, maybe they'll stand up to the feds the way they stood up to the baseball owners. That'll show 'em!

I'll be joining in on this alleged gang-bang of DC when I attend one of the Inaugural Balls tomorrow night. So excited. Perhaps I'll see some of you there? Ha-ha, just kidding.

Tell Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum, et al that we said "hi!"

Edited to add: Are you going to wear your baseball cap?

[ January 19, 2005, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Will do, Raze. Edited to add: The baseball cap reference probably makes sense in some realm that I've forgotten about. Is this like a Holden Caulfield thing from Catcher in the Rye? Should I wear a red hunting cap? Probably won't fly with security.

I think a red cap would be fine, blue - not a good idea. Have fun and keep an eye on Neil.

Word.

Unfortunately this I'm not attending this Ball...

Funny...

Caged Saddam To Be Highlight Of Inaugural Ball
WASHINGTON, DC—Attendees at the Independence Ball, one of nine officially sanctioned galas celebrating President George W. Bush's second inauguration Thursday, will be treated to a viewing of a caged Saddam Hussein, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "What better way to honor the president than with a physical symbol of his many first-term triumphs?" McClellan said as Hussein rattled the bars of a cage already suspended above the ballroom where the event will be held. "And I must compliment the planning committee. Outfitting Gitmo detainees with iron collars and forcing them to serve appetizers was an inspired stroke." Ball attendees will also be awarded door prizes, including a basket of nuts, 20 yards of cloth, and a barrel of crude oil.

[ January 19, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

There was no Outsports board when Clinton was inaugarated but I'm sure if there was, the above posters wouldn't have been complaining about his (2) inaugarals. Or to put it another way in 4 years when Hillary is inaugarated she will deserve the same treatment that is given every president - Democrat OR Republican. And yes, it is wartime but most wartime presidents (Eisenhower, Johnson included, during the Korean & Vietnam wars) celebrated after their wartime swearing-ins. Its true FDR didn't have very much in 1945 but it was also his 4th term. In 4 years you will get your turn to celebrate. The pendulum ALWAYS swings back the other way.

In the latest move to stick it to DC and make the Inauguration as troublesome as possible, Karl Rove has made it snow. Wow! These people will stop at nothing!

copman, I don't care if the Bushies want to spend $40 million dollars on their damn party - it only proves the complete lack of character in this administration to have such lavish events when we really could use the money elsewhere.

But the security cost thing is another issue entirely, it is a complete break with precedent and smacks of a punishment to the city for it support of Kerry - especially as the city has had relatively good relations with the White House for the past 4 years.

The only thing that really bothers me about this inauguration is the number of women wearing furs - I'm not a PETA freak or anything, but I was taught that wearing furs was a tacky gesture by the nouveau riche who are uncertain about their wealth (okay, some theories are true). I mean, you look at some of the ladies running around DC tonight and think "no, no, no you have it all wrong - Dynasty was a farce, you weren't supposed to actually look like that."

Nor was there blood being shed on a daily basis in a foreign country for no good reason. Nor did the federal government foist the costs for the inauguration onto the DC taxpayers, having the effect of taking money away from homeland security programs that are supposed to protect DC's citizens long after the wealthy power brokers who own the current president have left town.

No, he hadn't done the Wag the Dog bombings yet. Those were still to come.

I agree. After all, Clinton would definitely have foregone all HIS inaugural festivities for just a chicken salad lunch or something. It's OK for the Dems to do it, but for the Republicans, well...can't have that, can they?

Oh! The hypocrisy!

All this Inaugural bitching is just another way to bash Bush. Nothing more, nothing less. If we weren't gearing up for a big Inaugural, everybody in DC would be bitching about how the Bush Administration - in an obvious slap at the District for voting Kerry - is cruelly denying the DC hospitality industry the kazillions they would take in thanks to the Inauguration. (As far as this idiotic revenge thing, anybody who lives in the District and believes that thinks way to highly of themselves and their stomping grounds. Show me one person in the Bush Administration or in the Republican Party even who was shocked to the point of exacting revenge that the District voted overwhelmingly for Kerry and I'll show you a Democrat who's genuinely outraged based on pure principle, with no political or partisan bias, over the Inauguration.)

Inagurate Bush ?? Ummm.....hasn't he already been the president for the past 4 years? It seems that since he's already taken the oath and had the parade previously, something simple would be appropriate this time around.

If you're concerned about the money issue, the main point should be that federal employees are being given the day off. That costs the government an additional $66 million. Add that to the $40 million price tag for the inaguration, and $17 million that DC has to foot for security. That's $123 million dollars total for this "party" -- more than than the last 3 inagurations combined.

http://www.newschief.com/stories/011705/op...aguration.shtml

Personally I wouldn't mind if a huge snowstorm blizzard did in D.C. for the day. wink

Sore Loserman redux.

$12 million dollars taken from money that is intended to protect the citizens of this city from terrorist attacks is a very big deal, and is not at all about complaining. Particularly when there has been little, if anything, done to protect the vast area of DC that does not happen to have a cabinet official or other VIP near it.

Not...William. A sore loser is Dino Rossi who won't do the right thing and concede the Governors election out here. Take a lesson from Kerry Dino. Put a period in it and move on!

Never mind, this is just too ludricrous to even respond to - plus for normal people there's really no connection between the two topics.

[ January 20, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Flattery will get you nowhere. wink

Considering the Constitution mandates a president's term end at noon on the 20th of January, Bush has no choice but to be inaugurated. His term that began 1-20-2001 didn't run through 1-20-2009, so he has to begin a new one. Legally, there is a difference.

Just heard this funny bit from Fox News replayed on Howard Stern: a Fox News anchor had Vanity Fair's Judy Bacharach on her show to discuss the inauguration. Whoever booked her must have not done their homework (Bacharach's no fan of Bush).

It starts with the anchor chirping away about how pretty the city looks with snow coming down. Then she asks what Bacharach thinks. Bacharach explains that it's galling that the President is spending $40 million for 8 parties when there's a war going on, and when our soldiers don't have all the equipment they need to protect themselves. The anchor (panic rising in her voice, no doubt feeling ambushed and being unprepared for criticism) responds, 'Well, hasn't the President addressed this criticism?" [Here, Robin Quivers editorializes, 'The anchor seems to think that as long as the President has addressed criticism, we should just drop the subject.'] Bacharach responds that his response was inadequate. She then explains that when FDR was at war (a war that was going successfully), he had a modest inauguration, with just one party where he served chicken salad. The anchor responds: well, the President has explained that parties have are a celebration of democracy and our troops, and they're an example to fledging democracies like Afghanistan and Iraq. Bacharach says that's a crock, and the money would be better served going to the troops, and that no one needs 8 balls in a time of war. The anchor (here in full meltdown mode) comes back with, 'Well, the celebration is for the troops, and there's a prayer service for then.' To which Bacharach responds, 'Maybe you think that one prayer service is what will keep them safe in their Humvees, but I'd sooner they get the funds and the protection they need.' And the n the anchor puts a stop to it, thanking Bacharach for her time, but also explaining, pointedly, "we've given you more than enough time to express your opinion.”

[ January 21, 2005, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Great post Tom Ford. Thanks I would have loved to have seen that!!!

That explains why he'd need to be reinaugurated but it surely doesn't explain the need for such excess in terms of parties, security, basically shutting down the city, etc. And this doesn't just go for Bush but any second term President, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent.

I've heard some pundits justify it by saying the American public wants/needs these celebrations. Um, no. No we really don't.

from MIB:
MIB, the Constitution doesn't call for anything except for the President to take an oath on that day. The parade, balls, and pomp are optional. Considering its a second term, we're "at war", and have huge budget deficits, maybe something simple would have been more appropriate.

Happy to report the screwing of DC went brilliantly. Going in we got to mock some protesters. Always fun. Friend of mine was telling me about these schmoes on the parade route who tried to burn an American flag, but it was nylon so it wouldn't ignite (must not have done their homework!) so they tried to pour some lighter fluid or something on it to get it to light but it would just melt, never caught fire, then one of the protesters accidentally set his shirt on fire.

Inside I saw Ricky - ahem, Rick Schroeder. Also saw Anderson Cooper and all my friends were trying to get me to hit on him, but I was a bit underwhelmed, honestly. Afterwards hit a post-party at MCCXXIII. All in all, a good night. Going to a state society ball tonight. Don't know if this one will be as much of a dropkick to DC, but one can always hope.

I saw one protester being interview on the news yesterday. She was a late 50ish looking lady with grey hair and glasses...she was protesting because her son was killed in the "liberation" of Iraq.

Did you mock her?

Did you tell her what you have done to help out in this war you so wanted?

Wait, you havent done anything, you could enlist and go fight like a man but.....

No, Raze, I must have missed her.

Too bad for you, Im sure you would have gotten a kick out of mocking her.

Mocking is one of my pastimes...

Moderator, would you please relocate Mr. Raze's mocking posts to the "Takes One to Know One" thread?

Darn, I missed that dustup on Fox, but it does buttress their "fair and balanced" motto. The anchor was entirely within her rights commenting on Bacharach's screed as she did; it was an exchange of opinions on both sides and, having given Bacharach her forum, Fox was completely justified in reclaiming it. Something about "the marketplace of ideas," I'm told. But maybe the left is wary of such market-based concepts.

Silly me for jumping back and forth* between NBC and CBS, admittedly looking for signs of leftover crow on Dan Rather's chin in the latter case. Next time I'll know better than to leave FNC!
_____
*And up and down with delight during the whole day!

Exactly, sfo, libbies think Fox having a Bush-basher on is proof that they're NOT fair and balanced. And no matter how stupid you all think conservatives are, I can pretty much guarantee you that the Fox News people (if the people who booked this broad are in fact conservative) know that pretty much anyone and everyone from Vanity Fair is going to be knee-jerk anti-Bush. It's a step away from booking somebody from The Nation.

Why so testy today Mr Log Cabin - William said he mocked protestors, I asked him if he mocked the one I saw on tv. Not complicated.

Nah, this wasn't an attempt at bringing someone on for balance. The anchor was caught off guard, which is why it was funny (and why Stern was playing it). The tone was 'we didn't book you on here to be critical, this is supposed to be a puff piece on the ceremony, can't you just play along.' By the end, the anchor was unnerved, and she clearly lost her end of the 'frank exchange of ideas.' If the people who booked her knew she'd bash Bush, they should have prepared her better, or put Bacharach up against someone who wouldn't go into wide-eyed meltdown mode at the first sign of a fight.

It's so nice to know that Vanity Fair will be cancelling their lavish yet privately-funded Oscar party and donating that money to tsunami victims. I can't imagine VF spending all that money to celebrate films when real people are suffering a real catastrophe.

I can absolutely guarantee you that, had Bush planned this FDR-style chicken salad luncheon, Judy Bacharach would have been on FOX News or whatever station would have her bitching about how secretive the Bush Administration is, how they're shutting down a cherished democratic ritual, how they're starving the District of much-needed tourism dollars, how they're sending a terrible message to the American people that it's not safe to congregate in public, how the Bush people aren't having an inauguration because they know the Bush Administration was not legitimately elected, how they're trying to duck debates about national security, Social Security, etc, by erasing one of the most sacred forums in which we are able to hear a President offer his vision for the future. Blah-blah-blah. Bush haters will bitch about anything and everything, it's like breathing to them.

from William1865:
Sorta like what you just did ??

I have no idea what you're talking about. You obviously misread something, though I don't have the time or concern to figure out what. At any rate, I have nothing to bitch about - I went to an Inaugural ball and some good parties last night and I'm going to another big party tonight, then I'm going to be snowed in all weekend. Life is good, actually.

Inauguration Day photos*

Security fails to protect vice presidential limo from missile attack

Bible defamed by avowed lesbian


*Tip o' the hat to John Aravosis

OK, so just what the heck is an "avowed" lesbian? :confused:

Openly professed or acknowleged, often used as a perjorative by anti-gay "Christian" bible-thumpers. Here, let's Google it.

I don't understand how one could "defame" the Bible by merely touching it. I'm thinking defamation involves slander or libel.

[ January 24, 2005, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]