Anybody remember the anti-inauguration bandwagon the last presidential election cycle? The media, from East coast to West, wrote article after article deriding Bush for having an expensive inauguration during a time of war? Don't remember? Read here and here (HT: MM). Some excerpts:
"With the war in Iraq steadily claiming American lives and the world in mourning over the tsunami disaster, planners of the 55th presidential inauguration face an awkward challenge: how to throw the traditional four-day celebration without appearing to have too much fun."
"A few critics have called for cancellation of everything but the swearing-in because they find it unseemly to spend $40 million on shrimp, spirits, floats and frivolity while American soldiers must scrape together money for phone cards to call home."
"On the editorial page of Sunday’s Washington Post, Bernard Ries, identified in a different Post column as a former deputy chief administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board, objects to the expense of the upcoming inauguration"
"What gives me pause is the decision to spend some $40 million-plus at this moment in history. When I first began mulling over this expenditure, I thought it quite unseemly that, at a time when so many Americans and countless Iraqis "
So what has changed in 4 years? We're still in Iraq and have opened up the war in Afghanistan in recent months (Obama has promised more troops there as President also). Plus, we are in the midst of an economic recession that Obama himself said is the worst since the great depression (never mind that the Carter era recession had far worst unemployment, inflation and interest rates than we have now). So what has changed? Where are these nay-sayers wringing their hands in the media now that we are about to have reportedly the biggest, most expensive, most extravagant inauguration event in United States history? (crickets chirping)
So what has changed in 4 years? Well, 4 years ago it was Bush (in much better economic time by the way). Today it's Obama. That's. About. It.
Read more on this phenomenon from Michelle Malkin: "Where are all the Anti-Inauguration activists now?" Related post by AmericanPrincess. You'll have to read it here because you won't hear a peep about it from the MSM.
UPDATE: More from powerline: No media mudballs this time. The post lists the last half-dozen inaugurations and the MSM's narrative. Quite a patern there! "# 2005. Bush's second inaugural was met with far more hostility, with reporters attacking the $40 million price tag as obscene. "In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?" ABC's Terry Moran doubted. The AP's Will Lester calculated that the money spent on Bush's inaugural could vaccinate "22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami....Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" (Obama's inaugural will cost $45 million.)
The day before Bush's swearing-in, ABC's Web site pleaded for tips of "any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20." Sure enough, then-ABC anchor Peter Jennings got his wish to report how "just about the time the president was speaking, there was a funeral for a young Marine reservist: 21-year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb." Don't look for the networks to use such tactics to sour Obama's celebration. "
Ouch!
