atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1432: "Double standard" and I'll keep mentioning it whenever it happens

Michelle Malkin on the impending inaugural bacchanalia.

Four years ago we heard all sorts of screaming from the Democrats and the Left and the liberals about how President Bush was spending too much money on his second inauguration.

$42.3 million was excessive, we were told, and it was wrong.

Four years later the incoming Obama administration is spending

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

to celebrate Barak Hussein "Boss Tweek" Obama's ascension to President. Every reason the Democrats gave for President Bush not to have a big inaugural is still valid yet we're not hearing so much as a single peep from them about an inaugural that costs 3.54 times as much.

Why? Because it's their guy, that's why.

The only reason they didn't like Bush spending $42.3 on his inaugural is that they hate Bush. It had nothing to do with anything other than their hatred for President Bush.

Yes, it's a double standard. And it's one that the press is carefully not discussing, thus displaying its own double standard. No one in the American press is reminding Americans that Democrats were critical of President Bush four years ago over a tab that was less than 1/3 of the current bash's bill. (Michelle quotes a British paper. You can tell this because it gives equivalent costs in the British pound.) And the press sure as hell isn't mentioning its own criticisms of Bush's spending on his second inaugural.

$150,000,000. Jesus.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments