The controversy over inaugural spending

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I haven't gotten involved in this because I really don't care about it.

See, that's what I thought... until I saw you reference the Times article, sans link, elsewhere.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I will simply say that I do not think that should Kerry have been elected there would not be such an uproar over any such spending of private money on these events.

You are at least partly right. True, the dems probably wouldn't have too much to say but I suspect the repubs would be all over it.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That can't be - I would never say "fair enough" about anything Sac said.

I haven't gotten involved in this because I really don't care about it. I will simply say that I do not think that should Kerry have been elected there would not be such an uproar over any such spending of private money on these events.

There are always better things to spend money on than huge parties.

Really? Then, all the past references (by Repubs) as to Theresa Heinz-Kerry's money were for..? He was roundly slammed by them for having a wealthy wife. I really don't think he would have been as gauche as to thrown such an expensive soiree during such times, but I could be wrong. If he had, I would be doubly critical of him, as I would hold him to much higher standards.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I will simply say that I do not think that should Kerry have been elected there would not be such an uproar over any such spending of private money on these events.

As others have said, I have no problem at all imagining that had Kerry been elected, the republicans would have been all over him every inch of the way. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that they are above any such thing.

[scaeagles]

Perhaps I simply do not remember correctly, but I don't recall such outrage over spending when Clinton was reelected, whether it was 42 million or 30 million or 20 million or 700 million or whatever.

I did cite the Times article because I thought the uproar was simply stupid. Still do.

[jdramj]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Really? Then, all the past references (by Repubs) as to Theresa Heinz-Kerry's money were for..? He was roundly slammed by them for having a wealthy wife. I really don't think he would have been as gauche as to thrown such an expensive soiree during such times, but I could be wrong. If he had, I would be doubly critical of him, as I would hold him to much higher standards.

Maybe his wife could have afforded to pay the costs all by herself

I just don't really see the arguement here....Clinton did it (with inflation it cost more) and Bush did it (still A LOT of money). Previous Presidents did it, and newly elected Presidents in the future will do all of this. You can't control private donations and how they are spent. If you were given money and told this is for an inaugural ball....would you really turn around and spend it elsewhere?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by jdramj

Clinton did it (with inflation it cost more)

NO He didn't.

Refer to the first post in this thread.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by NirvanaMan

But it still fuels the beautiful machine of free economy and democracy...that many silly hippies think is an evil thing these days that they and only they should be allowed to experience. F the rest of the world.

Oh, is that what we're doing these days...spreading freedom and democracy? I thought we were in Iraq to protect America from WMD. At least, that's what I was told.

Listen, just because Karl Rove is brilliant doesn't mean that we have to swallow what he's tryin' to feed us. Anyone with a working memory knows why we, ostensibly, went into Iraq. When the WMD failed to materialize, the Bushies had to change the reason for the illegal invasion. Their choices were to either admit they F'd up big time or kick the spin machine into overdrive. And you just know Bush isn't going to admit to any mistakes. Personal accountability, after all, is for the poor and unconnected. Amazingly, it's working! Bush is now being lauded as a beacon of freedom for the entire world.

The same man who once said "There ought to be limits to freedom" after being parodied on a website is now, supposedly, the leading voice for world-wide freedom. It must be incredibly easy to rewrite recent history when you have 60 million or so willing co-conspirators.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

the Bushies had to change the reason for the illegal invasion.

Can't let that go. NOT illegal. The terms of the cease fire (not a treaty, but a cease fire) from Gulf War I were violated every time they shot at our aircraft or delayed a weapons inspector for 10 minutes.

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

The same man who once said "There ought to be limits to freedom" after being parodied on a website is now, supposedly, the leading voice for world-wide freedom. It must be incredibly easy to rewrite recent history when you have 60 million or so willing co-conspirators.

And Clinton once said that when "people abuse their rights, sometimes the government must curtail them." Yeah, i know, not about Clinton, but politicians say stupid things all the time. And I fully admit what Bush said in that quote was stupid.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Perhaps I simply do not remember correctly, but I don't recall such outrage over spending when Clinton was reelected, whether it was 42 million or 30 million or 20 million or 700 million or whatever.

You are correct. The pubs were all a bit busy trying to bring him down through frivolous investigations of real estate deals that cost the taxpayers far more than any inaugural ball ever could have. But I digress...

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The terms of the cease fire (not a treaty, but a cease fire) from Gulf War I

Ah yes, the first illegal invasion. What is it with the Bush men? Small penises or something?