Is it criticism you noticed on your own or criticism you're echoing from the link on the front page of the Drudge Report?

I ask because so far I've seen several articles criticising the cost of this inauguration, though in Op-Ed form (just as, if it was criticism, it must have been in the NY Times, BBC, and AP) from those ideologically opposed to the person spending the money. The complainers seem to have switched sides as so often happens.

That said, the article linked from Drudge is from the AP, so presumably they should be off your list of potential hypocrites. Though it only names two people who criticized the 2005 inauguration (and a quick search to find articles from 2005 also only ever name the same two people as complaining about the cost) and doesn't seem to make any attempt to get their opinions this time around to see if they are being inconsistent.

Loved the performance by U2!

Actually I googled something to the effect of "inauguration cost 2005" and also for 2009 because in my various radio listenings I had heard of numerous op-eds disparaging the cost of the 2005 and that they same op-ed writers were strangely silent about this one.

What I found was relatively consistent with what I'd heard, but figured I should give full disclosure and cite one I had seen in the search since I had been critical of the AP.

As I told my mother, who gets all of her issues, good and bad, from conservative talk radio, this is one of those issues on which Obama would be dumped on no matter what he did. If he had put on a low frills bash, he'd have been criticized for demeaning the high office of the presidency and bringing down the morale of the country at a difficult time.

So is the criticism about money or about putting on a big party while at war? (I just noticed you added to your post while I was responding to it, but the segment you quoted is about extravagant displays during war.)

Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK".

I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him.

Another example is whomever his choice is for Secretary of the Treasury...the man did not make honest mistakes, IMO. He dodged paying taxes. However, I am not aware of calls for him to withdraw the nomination.

Strangler, politics is such that of course that will happen, and it happened to Bush all the time.

I've been withholding numerous ciriticsms of Obama and the dems at present....this is just fluff, and a jab at the media and particular elected members of Congress who were so vocal in their opposition to the money spent in 2005, not Obama.

Just like the "liberal" media glossed over every wrong doing by Bush?

Actually, according to this article at least, the mainstream media's math is a little off. It would appear that they included all of the security costs into the 2009 number, but failed to do so in the 2005 numbers. Do that and it turns out that this event didn't cost anywhere near four times what was spent in 2005. But those fair and balanced folks at the NY Daily News weren't quite so interested in accuracy when they first broke this "story" which everybody picked up without checking the facts.

Thanks for the link, MBC. :snap:

Yes, thanks.

So current estimates are that the Obama inauguration will cost $3 more than Bush's. I guess we're just left with the hypocrisy of two congressional Democrats not complaining about it.