Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Jon Stewart on the inauguration, interview with Gene Robinson Previous entry: Starfucked

Suddenly, there are “questions” about the right to basic safety

By now, I’m sure most of you have heard the horror story about the apples-and-oranges comparisons between Bush’s inauguration costs and Obama’s.  If not, here’s the story at Media Matters.

Here’s why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush’s 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration’s security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here’s The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

  The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama’s inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What’s happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

This calculation showed up not just on Fox, but on MSNBC, because all these fuckers are in the habit of repeating slander they see on the Drudge Report as if it were news.  I don’t think that the people at MSNBC were being willful in this, but I have exactly zero doubt that the right wing sources who started this story knew that’s it’s intellectually dishonest to remove the costs of security from Bush’s figure and include it in Obama’s.  And they didn’t care.  This is going to be a major issue for the next 4-8 years.  Right wingers will just blatantly lie about Obama, Drudge will post links, and the morons in the mainstream media will repeat the lies without doing basic fact-checking.  Which will be left to Media Matters.  Great. 


To make it worse, the lie has an unsavory element to it that Brian Beutller teases out.

Instead, though, the press has quietly started holding Obama accountable for the high cost of protecting himself. Whereas before, it was customary to factor in security as an acceptable cost of doing business, it now falls to this incoming president to be discreet, if only to keep costs down.

Regardless of whether you think Obama has high-minded motivations or is just a really ambitious person, it’s undeniable that he and his wife have demonstrated a great deal of courage in undertaking this campaign and office.  And our worst fears about the worst elements of our society have been backed up by the piles of threats that Obama has received.  This isn’t going to get better, but worse, I suspect, because on top of the crazy white supremacist stuff, you’re going to see the development of a cottage industry dedicated to spinning conspiracy theories to “prove” what most wingnuts are eager to believe, which is that Obama is not a legitimate President.  There’s a reason you all know the name of Vince Foster, and it’s because the wingnuts did it to Clinton.  But now they have the shame of having elected Dubya Bush to office, and so they’re going to be eager to lash out even more, because the President they hate is cleaning up the enormous mess they caused.

The cost of security is the price we pay for what’s likely to be a new era of openness from the White House.  The Obamas got out of the limo and took the walk down Pennsylvania Avenue for part of the parade, a tradition that Bush broke with out of a combination of his contempt for the citizenship trappings of the Presidency, and out of fear of getting hit with eggs, a fear that Obama didn’t have to share.  It was an important gesture to make, because it’s a symbolic break with the closed doors and secrecy of the Bush White House.  Plus, the people who elected Obama want to see him out there interacting with the public, and the cost of that is paying for security. 

I don’t think the wingnuts who started this story were consciously up to anything more but floating a blatant lie in order to slander Obama and imply that he thinks he’s some big deal.  But I do think there was a subconscious element of begrudging him and the people who voted for him Obama’s popularity and openness, because the preferred President of wingnuts is a loathed figure who really does think he’s too good to show respect for the trappings of democracy.  And so it results in begrudging Obama the security price tag that comes with going out in the public to wave and shake hands.  And let’s face it—-the Obama inauguration did seem more glittery, but not because it cost more.  It’s because the attendees were more glamorous.  Obama gets Beyonce to sing for him, and lucky Bush got Ben Stein to crack unfunny jokes.  It’s the dueling Starbucks problem, but this time with more balls.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:25 PM • (67) Comments

Maybe Im naive, but Im not too worried about an assassination. Ive never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB.  There were no attempts on his life - at least none we know of. If he made it through 8 years I think Obama will too.

Comment #1: chris  on  01/21  at  01:43 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more,” said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That’s more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush’s committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton’s first inaugural in 1993.

Yeah, that darn ABC News…..Lyin’ Bastards!

Comment #2: RazorCat  on  01/21  at  01:44 PM

Its particularly grating and gratuitous because, of course, the increased security (if it is an increase) is due to the fact that Bush’s own disappointed supporters are considered an active, militarized, threat to Obama in a way that Gore’s disappointed supporters never were to Bush.  First, you arm the looniest, angriest, least mature section of our population, create a traumatized post military population, and then you bitch about the cost of protecting a President from their hysteria potential attacks?

Plus, of course, what happened to “terrorists want to kill us?” Wasn’t that the cost free reason given for every costly innovation of the Bush years vis a vis the public—the free speech zones, the lockdowns when Bush went out, Cheney’s refusal to allow his house to appear on satellite photographs, the incessant badgering of press to keep details out of the paper. I’d love to see the real costs of Bush’s *pissing on the entire world* factored into his reign of error and contrasted to Clinton’s costs.

aimai

Comment #3: aimai  on  01/21  at  01:47 PM

RazorIdiot:

Yeah, that darn ABC News…..Lyin’ Bastards!

You know, I re-read it twice, but I didn’t see ABC mentioned in Amanda’s post.

So it seems like you’re only confirming her argument that right-wingers will engage in dishonesty even when A) they don’t have to, B) there’s nothing to be gained from it and C) it’s such a painfully obvious lie anyways.

You know, it’s almost like you just love lying for its own sake.

Comment #4: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  01/21  at  01:51 PM

Yeah, that darn ABC News…..Lyin’ Bastards!

<strike>LOL</strike>Razorcat: I can has reading comprehension?

Comment #5: Seraph  on  01/21  at  01:52 PM

Ive never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB.

Either you are joking, or you are full of shit.  Were you not paying attention for the last eight+ years?  Bush was widely reviled right out of the gate because of the underhanded means by which he was allowed to take power.  After that, his record speaks for itself.

Bush’s harshest critics were largely progressives and liberals, people who believe in democracy, civilization, basic human decency; these people’s greatest vulnerability is their frequent unwillingness to take the fight to their enemies.  Obama’s harshest critics—well, we know what kind of racists, xenophobes, and pea-brained malcontent dead-enders made up the ever-shrinking dregs of Bush’s approval ratings.  Bush’s most animated detractors threw eggs, harsh language, and facts; Obama-haters regurgitate insane lies and stock up on guns and ammo.  You tell me who’s more likely to try and subvert democracy with an assassination attempt.

Can we put a stop to that line of trolling now, please?

Comment #6: Sam Holloway  on  01/21  at  01:58 PM

I’m waiting to see the first Obama Death List, the list of people the wingnuts claim he killed/had-killed to rise to the top.  I’m sure either there’s one already out or they’re working on one…

Or “Protocols of the Elders of Obama”...

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  01/21  at  02:01 PM

I don’t think the wingnuts who started this story were consciously up to anything more but floating a blatant lie in order to slander Obama

And they’ll have a willing audience available to repeat the lies. Lying makes them feel like “part of the team.” It’s like putting a campaign bumper sticker on your car, but involving venal sins and the requirement for confession afterwards.

Comment #8: Tyro  on  01/21  at  02:04 PM

I’m waiting to see the first Obama Death List…

Do you mean one you’re supposed to take seriously, or one like this?

Comment #9: Xecky Gilchrist  on  01/21  at  02:06 PM

Even if the event had cost significantly more, what these fundies are ignoring is the historical significance of the moment. Bush lied and stole his way to the presidency and Obama is the first African American president.  After a history of Jim Crow, and slavery, this moment deserves the kind of celebration that it received.  Besides the dollars and cents amount, it has already been paid for in a river of blood.

Comment #10: Renee  on  01/21  at  02:06 PM

MikeEss, I saw such a list circulating back around the time of the Dem primary.  The wingnuts wasted no time on that one.

http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2008/07/fw-obama-death-list.html

Comment #11: Sam Holloway  on  01/21  at  02:07 PM

Obama’s harshest critics—well, we know what kind of racists, xenophobes, and pea-brained malcontent dead-enders made up the ever-shrinking dregs of Bush’s approval ratings.  Bush’s most animated detractors threw eggs, harsh language, and facts; Obama-haters regurgitate insane lies and stock up on guns and ammo.  You tell me who’s more likely to try and subvert democracy with an assassination attempt.

That’s basically the big worry.  Bush detractors were often described by even Bush and his cronies as peaceniks and wimps.  The idea that a little old lady from Code Pink is going to run around throwing hand grenades or taking sniper shots is somewhat laughable.

By contrast, the 2nd Amendment First wackjobs on the right have been stocking up on Guns & Ammo magazines and emergency Cheetos rations for years.  To be fair, the loudest of the bunch tend to be fat slobs like Limbaugh or Goldberg.  But that doesn’t preclude another Timothy McVeigh or Atlantic City Park Bomber with too much time and not enough self-preservation for his own good.

Obama’s detractors are the same jackholes and goons that cheered on torturing innocent people at Gitmo because they had the wrong skin color or the wrong religion.  And these nuts have skin in the game - Blackwater Mercs, Airforce Fundies, Halliburton contractors - all with military experience and a vested financial interest in continuing Bush-era policies.

They are a dangerous bunch.

Comment #12: Zifnab25  on  01/21  at  02:09 PM

ve never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB.

Really?  I suppose there’s a lot of possibilities of why you would think this, but none of them are especially flattering.

Were you a child or otherwise unable to pay attention to what happened - and still happens - to Bill and Hillary Clinton?  Are you just willfully blind to the way in which Obama has repeatedly been portrayed using the worst racist stereotypes our society has to offer?

Are you incapable of comprehending the ways in which gays are scapegoated for all of the world’s problems - or at least those that aren’t blamed on Muslims and atheists? 

No hatred directed at George Bush can be called “irrational.”  Not one bit.  He’s a perpetual failure, an immature clown who never accomplished anything on his own.  After a lifetime of being socially passed and promoted, he turned into the perfect useful idiot for the GOP’s power brokers.  His administration was nothing more than a constant stream of criminal profiteering, lying to the American people, war crimes, desecration of the Constitution, and intentional incompetence.  George Bush - and his cabal of handlers and enablers - is a petty, spiteful, soulless shell of a human being who deserves nothing more than to live out the rest of his life in some sort of agony.  His continued existence is a festering boil on the ass of humanity.  We would benefit greatly if his entire clan were to be blasted away from earth to colonize some distant, unlucky planet.

None of the foregoing is irrational.  None of it.  Bush is one of the world’s great monsters of the last 100 years.  The only reason to not see it is the willful blindness of ideology triumphing over any actual connection to the real world.

Comment #13: Stephen Suh  on  01/21  at  02:11 PM

Ive never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB.

Chris, you apparently only kept the plastic bag on your head long enough to cause brain damage.  Try for a little longer next time.

Comment #14: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/21  at  02:21 PM

Maybe Im naive, but Im not too worried about an assassination. Ive never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB.  There were no attempts on his life - at least none we know of. If he made it through 8 years I think Obama will too.

On May 10, 2005 in Tiblisi, Georgia, Vladimir Arutyunian threw a live grenade at GWB which failed to detonate. There was also a guy who emptied a handgun at the Whitehouse in 2001 but that was never conclusively tied to a real attempt on the president’s life. That guy was pissed about losing his job, it was not political.

There were also two assassination attempts on Bill Clinton, both domestic. One of them was just pathetic but in the other one the guy claimed he was incited by a conservative talk-show host. You must have slept through those eight years… under a rock… on Mars if you think the hatred directed at GWB was anything like that directed at the Clinton.

Comment #15: Sarcastro  on  01/21  at  02:21 PM

Only thing I want to see is the Obama Def List.

Comment #16: Sarcastro  on  01/21  at  02:24 PM

...what these fundies are ignoring is the historical significance of the moment.

Ahhhh…..this is what we have all been waiting on…...the reason offered up why it’s OK for their guy, but when it was Bush, all they did was whine.  This is as bad as when “.....but, it’s for the Children…” comes out.

These are techniques designed to squelch all criticism. Instead of making their case, they wish to place the issue above any criticism. It’s somehow off limits.

No, it isn’t off limits.

Comment #17: RazorCat  on  01/21  at  02:26 PM

If Obama weren’t such an uppity Neg… um, inexperienced politician (yeah, that’s it), he wouldn’t be president right now and we wouldn’t have to worry about security costs.

[/wingnut]

Comment #18: CrazyDrumGuy  on  01/21  at  02:26 PM

I’ve already seen innuendo to the effect that Obama went to Hawaii just before the election to off his grandmother before she could reveal the “truth” about his birth certificate.

Comment #19: Ellid  on  01/21  at  02:27 PM

“I’ve already seen innuendo to the effect that Obama went to Hawaii just before the election to off his grandmother before she could reveal the “truth” about his birth certificate.”

I know a guy who’s best friend’s cousin was her gardener, and he saw the whole thing!...

Comment #20: MikeEss  on  01/21  at  02:35 PM

Ellid, it’s like they think Lifetime Original Movies reflect actual reality…

Comment #21: Essie the Elephant  on  01/21  at  02:37 PM

Actually, Razer, if you’re mathematically inclined, you might note that Obama’s $45 million inaugural in 2009 is less than Bush’s 2005 inaugural when you account for inflation.

Comment #22: Tyro  on  01/21  at  02:37 PM

Really, it cost too much?. Looks like we’ll have to cancel some wars. Maybe we can cut back on Obama’s Second Inauguration.

It’s actually the Chicago Comptroller that needs protection.

Comment #23: stryx  on  01/21  at  02:39 PM

Actually, Razer, if you’re mathematically inclined, you might note that Obama’s $45 million inaugural in 2009 is less than Bush’s 2005 inaugural when you account for inflation.

Using a quick CPI calculator:

$33 million in 1993 = $48 million in 2008
$42.3 million on 2005 = $45.5 million in 2008

If you take into account the increased attendance - the most conservative estimates I can find put the attendance for this inauguration at 3 times Bush’s 2005 - then there’s really no remaining basis for saying that Obama’s inauguration was costlier.

Comment #24: jfpbookworm  on  01/21  at  02:47 PM

The funniest part about our racist trolls is that they probably really believe that belittling the power of this moment isn’t racist.  And that, of course, is the problem.  Attitudes like Razor’s give crazy white supremacists a sense that they are supported by the larger community, because they look at people like Razor and think, “See, he’s scared to say it, but he agrees with me!”  And that’s not funny at all.

Comment #25: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/21  at  02:48 PM

Ahhhh…..this is what we have all been waiting on…...the reason offered up why it’s OK for their guy, but when it was Bush, all they did was whine. This is as bad as when “.....but, it’s for the Children…” comes out.

These are techniques designed to squelch all criticism. Instead of making their case, they wish to place the issue above any criticism. It’s somehow off limits.

Dude, who the fuck do you think you’re fooling, here? You obviously aren’t smart enough to recognize when a case is being made in the first place, and even if you were, you’ve made it perfectly clear that you aren’t intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.

Whenever you find that your ideology forces you to argue that there is no such thing as a valid criticism of Bush, it’s time for you to re-evaluate your worldview. Because yes, we all realize that you’re morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt in every conceivable way. You don’t have to keep rubbing it in our faces.

Comment #26: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  01/21  at  02:58 PM

Fun facts about the wine served at the inaugural lunch—-there were three, costing $30, $50, and $14 a bottle.  According to Forbes, this is contrast with the Bushes, who tended to stick to the $300 bottles of wine.  It makes sense that you’d see this difference, because while the costs of the 2005 and 2009 inaugurations were roughly the same, the funding sources were wildly different.

In November, Obama announced that his presidential inauguration committee would not accept donations from corporations, lobbyists, political action committees, or unions. The move appeared to set Obama apart from President Bush, whose official inaugurations were underwritten almost exclusively by corporations and executives.

Obama cheerfully outdoes Bush in populist pandering, probably because actually knows what it’s like to be middle class, which Bush doesn’t, giving his pandering a faking it effect.  Even the luncheon menus reflected this difference.

While Obama’s inaugural luncheon was self-consciously all-American and reportedly based on Abraham Lincoln’s favorite dishes (seafood stew; wild game; apple cake), both of Bush’s inaugural luncheons have been… um… weirdly French (lobster gratin—OK, they called it “lobster pie”—enscalloped lobster and crab, and “grenadine of beef Supreme”.)

 

I think she’s overstating it—-food is food, seriously—-but the fact remains that Bush supporters who are trying to make a fuss over the elegance and expense of the Obama administration are basically trying to argue that it’s okay for Bush, but not for Obama to have nice things.  Why?  Because Democrats count less?  Because Bush needs to be pampered and not exposed to the dirty life of the ordinary middle class?  Because there’s this bitterness at seeing a black family rise to the most prominent position in the country?  I have my suspicions.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/21  at  03:02 PM

When I heard he was walking outside the car, all I could think was

PLEASE get back in.

I’m no gov’t spender, but ya gota protect the President, and especially
this one.  An historic occassion.  There will be plenty of legit debates
later on.  Why waste time on this nonsense?

Comment #28: Libertarian  on  01/21  at  03:07 PM

>>it’s okay for Bush, but not for Obama to have nice things.  Why?

Well, you know, THESE people, if they’ve got nice things it’s because they took it from, you know, OUR KIND of people.

Comment #29: BlackBloc  on  01/21  at  03:07 PM

So, how long before we get the “he flubbed the oath so he isn’t a real preznit!” babbling?  Ignoring the fact that he was president at noon, before he even took the oath, and that it was Roberts fault for trying to go too fast and getting the words wrong.

My bet is we have the first lawsuit filed within 6 weeks.

Comment #30: Dan  on  01/21  at  03:14 PM

So, how long before we get the “he flubbed the oath so he isn’t a real preznit!” babbling?  Ignoring the fact that he was president at noon, before he even took the oath, and that it was Roberts fault for trying to go too fast and getting the words wrong.

Also ignoring the fact that he signed a written version of the oath before he stepped out. Nothing in the constitution says he has to take it orally.

Comment #31: gwangung  on  01/21  at  03:26 PM

it’s okay for Bush, but not for Obama to have nice things.  Why? 

Because libruls are objectively anti-nice things, Amanda, and so when they have some, they’re obviously rank hypocrites.  And they’re extra extra double hypocrites if they have nice things but try to alleviate poverty.

Comment #32: Michael Bérubé  on  01/21  at  03:29 PM

So, how long before we get the “he flubbed the oath so he isn’t a real preznit!” babbling?

Chris Wallace on Fox. Yesterday.

Comment #33: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/21  at  03:32 PM

Anyone who caught the December 31st edition of MSNBC’s Hardball learned that the Top 3 Scandals of 2008 were the following:

1. Gov. Blagojevich

2. Gov. Spitzer

3. Sen. Edwards

Bear in mind, this was reported the week after Dick Cheney boasted to authorizing waterboarding, a war crime for which Japanese soldiers were incarcerated. ALL of our nation’s top scandals were committed by the Democratic Party (pure coincidence, of course).

So, America’s plunge to the depths of a 3rd world tyrant that tortures and murders isn’t as scandalous according to our media as having a sexual affair or pay-for-play politics.

Also bear in mind, MSNBC, the home of Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Nora O’Donnell, Andrea Mitchell, and (formerly) Mike Weiner Savage, is considered “ultra-leftist” by the rightwing nutjobs, and THEY deem none of the Bush crimes even scandalous, let alone THE most damaging scandals of the year.

Comment #34: Luther Brixton  on  01/21  at  03:32 PM

These are techniques designed to squelch all criticism. Instead of making their case, they wish to place the issue above any criticism. It’s somehow off limits.

Well you know RazorCat, 9/11 changed everything.

Comment #35: stryx  on  01/21  at  03:43 PM

FTR, RazorCat = DodgeRam = Amanda’s long-time stalker.

Comment #36: TrollWatch  on  01/21  at  03:50 PM

FTR, RazorCat = DodgeRam = DogBreath = one of Amanda’s long-time stalker.

Just a brief addendum.

Comment #37: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/21  at  03:52 PM

but I have exactly zero doubt that the right wing sources who started this story knew that’s it’s intellectually dishonest to remove the costs of security from Bush’s figure and include it in Obama’s.

Oh, I doubt that some of the sources know what “intellectually dishonest” means when it applies top conservative causes.

Comment #38: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/21  at  03:53 PM

I think she’s overstating it—-food is food, seriously

Remember that lie during the election that Michelle Obama had ordered caviar, lobster, and a lobster chaser from room service?  It isn’t just food.  The Bushes live in the lap of luxury, in the most banal way.  (You’d think they were nouveau riche with their obsession with displays of status.)  They then accuse Democrats, especially those uppity Obamas, of exactly what they themselves are guilty of.

Comment #39: keshmeshi  on  01/21  at  03:57 PM

Ive never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB. 

Ok, late to the party, but I can honestly say that my hatred toward Former President GWB is highly rational and well seasoned in the long slow march that trampled the Constitution into oblivion.

Comment #40: cynickal  on  01/21  at  04:11 PM

“Ok, late to the party, but I can honestly say that my hatred toward Former President GWB is highly rational and well seasoned in the long slow march that trampled the Constitution into oblivion.”

Here, here!  There have many times during the last 8-years when I felt like the only sane person left in America, because I could see with cold, rational, logic just where we were going, while everyone else seemed to be living in an alternate reality.

I’m going to make Cassandra my middle name…

Comment #41: MikeEss  on  01/21  at  04:57 PM

“Ok, late to the party, but I can honestly say that my hatred toward Former President GWB is highly rational and well seasoned in the long slow march that trampled the Constitution into oblivion.”

Hell yeah.

Comment #42: atheist  on  01/21  at  05:04 PM

IP MASKER: KILLSCRIPT

Comment #43: DogBreath  on  01/21  at  05:25 PM

Thanks, Troll. I’ll keep that in mind in the future.

Comment #44: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/21  at  05:25 PM

IP MASKER: KILLSCRIPT

Comment #45: DogBreath  on  01/21  at  05:42 PM

IP MASKER: KILLSCRIPT

Comment #46: DogBreath  on  01/21  at  05:46 PM

MAJeff, I agree that Chris is an asshole, but encouraging someone to commit suicide really isn’t cool.

Comment #47: A.  on  01/21  at  06:00 PM

IP MASKER: KILLSCRIPT

Comment #48: TruthDetector  on  01/21  at  06:04 PM

Keshmeshi said, and I have no idea how to box the quote nicely as others do:

The Bushes live in the lap of luxury, in the most banal way.  (You’d think they were nouveau riche
with their obsession with displays of status.) They then accuse Democrats, especially those uppity
Obamas, of exactly what they themselves are guilty of.

The right has for years accused the left of the right’s own crimes and behaviors, from not wearing flag pins to refusing “an up or down vote” on something, and on and endlessly on.

So it is natural that the arriviste black sheep of the Bush family acts like what used to be called a “mushroom,” popping up overnight. The conspicuous consumption was matched with an attitude of resentment, as when a reporter asked Sarkozi a question in French. The ex-tyrant’s welcome return to the land of his stage set, Rancho Borracho, was accomplished with a little speech in which he boasted (or marveled?) that this good ole boy had traveled to the likes of Paris, France, and had met with famous world leaders, including royalty. Boy howdy! He sounded like someone from Gopher Prairie. Makes me think of Mr. and Mrs. Haddock in the classic satires by that famous ‘premature anti-Fascist” [NB: It is Never too early to be anti-Fascist] Donald Ogden Stewart. No wonder they gobbled all that lobster and guzzled the fancy wine while someone else was paying the bill.

Freeloaders! THEY trashed the place—the country, the constitution, the environment, the future—and it was not their place. The war crimes trials, the Bugliosi-inspired murder trial (he’s pushing for some state with a death penalty as venue of choice), the numerous insiders who told Sy Hersh they’d tell all starting Jan 20… those things may put the parvenus where they belong. Unless the media still insists that IOKIYAR.

Which brings me back to the original story, seeming to provide even more data to show that the MSM are continuing their dishonest ways.

Comment #49: Tomm  on  01/21  at  06:04 PM

Hmm - alter the killscript to use phrases like “I’m a little teapot” or “I need my nappies changed”?

Comment #50: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/21  at  06:09 PM

I’ve found the more banal it is, the less the troll gets his oxygen, which is attention.  Every time people respond at all to trolls, they stick around for longer, and so I’m trying to get around that problem.

Comment #51: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/21  at  06:15 PM

He’s not being censored, just denied the the privilege of continuing to spew his abuse here. He’s more than welcome to start his own blog.

Comment #52: kaninchen  on  01/21  at  06:34 PM

“I’ve never seen more raw, often irrational hatred than that directed at GWB.”

It’s true: And the OTHER 28% of the American people aren’t really that fond of him either—they just say they are because they think it pisses off the liberal media.

Seriously, though, while Clinton was president two wingnuts blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, another sprayed the front of the White House with an AK-47, a fourth put a few rifle rounds through the White House dining room window, and a fifth climbed over the White House fence with a pistol, only to be tackled about 30 yards shy of the East Wing by the Secret Service.

During the Bush Jr. administration, on the other hand, we’ve had a bunch of protestors try to crash GOP campaign rallies wearing anti-Bush t-shirts.

Now you tell me which group poses the bigger security threat.

Comment #53: Peter Principle  on  01/21  at  06:59 PM

Ms. Marcotte (I’d rather risk sounding too formal than too familiar by calling you Amanda), or whoever is on mod duty, I believe replying to kalinchen by overwriting her message is

a) confusing as hell to people who hadn’t read her comment first
b) a bit overboard, since the question to me seemed one of genuine confusion at the reason why our resident troll is being filtered out rather than a snarky ‘oh isn’t that like the Left to censor the voice of TROOF!’, an impression that was sort of / kind of confirmed by seeing that her livejournal page is atypical of right-wing loons

I do understand the reasons why you might have done so, though. Concern trolls are concerned, and all that. I just think in this particular case you had a bit of an itchy trigger finger.

Comment #54: BlackBloc  on  01/21  at  07:00 PM

That said, your blog, your rules.

Comment #55: BlackBloc  on  01/21  at  07:01 PM

That wasn’t kesh, though.  It was our troll name-stealing.  Please, the more attention he gets, the longer he’ll stick around.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/21  at  07:02 PM

Also bear in mind, MSNBC, the home of Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Nora O’Donnell, Andrea Mitchell, and (formerly) Mike Weiner Savage, is considered “ultra-leftist” by the rightwing nutjobs

Tweety annoys the crap out of me, but I don’t put him squarely in the same ideological group as someone like Scarborough or Buchanan (another MSNBC regular).  He’s a twit, and he’s certainly not a progressive, but every job he’s ever held outside of his journalistic career has been for Democrats - he was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and an aide to former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, and when rumors of him running for Senate came up, there was no doubt that he would be running as a Democrat had he chosen to run.

That said, he is a misoogynist creepy twit, he’s phony as hell in trying to characterize himself as a “man of the people, salt of the earth, good old Irish Catholic kid from Philly” (considering he’s been a Beltway insider for 30 years), and he likes to stir the pot way too much.

He was pretty clearly a huge Obama fan, to the point of being creepy as hell (“tingle up his leg”).

Comment #57: DTG in STL  on  01/21  at  07:14 PM

He was pretty clearly a huge Obama fan, to the point of being creepy as hell (“tingle up his leg”).

He swooned over Commander Codpiece, too, during the whole “Mission Accomplished” fiasco.  I suspect Tweety may have a few Daddy issues.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  01/21  at  09:19 PM

I always wondered why right-wing spending nuts never went after the Bush administration’s paid trips to see party faithful.  Those were hellishly expensive, especially in 2002, 2004.

Comment #59: Crissa  on  01/21  at  10:21 PM

You know, George Bush started a war of choice against a country that didn’t do anything to us and was incapable of threatening us.  We had Saddam contained between 2 no fly zones.

Over 2 million Iraqis have been killed, maimed, orphaned, widowed, or displaced by our actions.  They no longer have reliable electricity or water and Baghdad is now a walled city.  Women have fewer rights under the new constitution than under the old one.  While one can argue that if there’s no rule of law, it doesn’t really matter, the fact is that if the laws were enforced, women are legally worse off thanks to American intervention.

I just can’t joke about it.  I can’t just laugh at the other idiocy of the man.  People are dead, maimed, displaced and tortured, all in my name b/c I’m an American.

As if that weren’t more enough, then there’s Katrina, and FISA, and the destruction of our military and the raiding of our treasury for Cheney’s buddies at Haliburton—no bid contracts with no oversight.  No one can even come close to explaining where the money went—and there’s very little to show for it.  Well, they electrocuted a few soldiers, but as Cheney said, they’re fungible.

Yes, I’m thrilled he’s out of office, but I won’t be satisfied till he’s swinging by the neck at the Hague.

Is that hatred?  Maybe so.  But it’s not irrational.

Comment #60: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/21  at  10:32 PM

DTG:

Tweety is what they used to call a useful idiot. He really wants to be a liberal democrat, but all the rightwing lies are just so convincing. And besides, it wouldn’t be objective to just dismiss them out of hand, so freedom of the press requires they be repeated as often as possible.

Comment #61: paul  on  01/21  at  10:42 PM

I do think that the risk of assassination is real, mostly because the white supremacists have been fantasizing over the possibility, and a few actually tried but were incompetent enough to have been caught before they came anywhere near Obama (see accounts of the Dem Convention). There’s also the “random crazy seeking fame” (such as Squeaky Fromme) - these types are a risk no matter who is president.

But that’s why we pay the Secret Service and others. It’s part of the cost of doing business as a democracy with some degree of access - would anyone really prefer having the Cheney-style “Undisclosed Location”-House?

as for “killscript”, keep the announcement bland, so that there’s no positive feedback

Comment #62: NancyP  on  01/21  at  11:18 PM

Oh hai,

I just tried to submit something and it vanished. Rather than reproduce my own commentary, here is the link I found to back up yet another potentially lethal attack on the Clintons:

Airplane Flown into White House, Sept 11, 1994

Comment #63: Mark Foxwell  on  01/22  at  12:32 AM

the increased security (if it is an increase) is due to the fact that Bush’s own disappointed supporters are considered an active, militarized, threat to Obama in a way that Gore’s disappointed supporters never were to Bush.

And the people who can’t wrap their “minds” around the idea that a black person would be president. Damn those black people sticking the taxpayer with the bill for their blackness! What right does Barack Obama have to be black with my money?

In other words, the emphasis on increased security costs has racist dogwhistle somewhere in its ancestry.

Also, Jeff, he retook the oath today for just that reason.

Comment #64: Hershele Ostropoler  on  01/22  at  01:21 AM

And the people who can’t wrap their “minds” around the idea that a black person would be president. Damn those black people sticking the taxpayer with the bill for their blackness! What right does Barack Obama have to be black with my money?

In other words, the emphasis on increased security costs has racist dogwhistle somewhere in its ancestry.

Also, Jeff, he retook the oath today for just that reason.

The irony of that is that if there is in fact any extra costs associated with the security of our first African-American president, it’s in part because of racist jackasses who stir the pot by bitching about the first black president’s security costs.

Comment #65: DTG in STL  on  01/22  at  05:42 AM

The other great irony is that the right-wingers are claiming that Obama is racists for wanting so much security because that clearly signals that he thinks we’re racist and trying to kill him.  Because nothing is more racist than calling out racism.

And I think the pearl clutching about the costs is just reactionary characterization of all government spending as bad or wasteful.  It’s not like they blew a hundred mil on Beyonce.  The money went to pay overtime for police officers and military personnel, not to mention caterers, etc.  Not to mention the economic boost it gave to hotels and restaurants, etc.

Comment #66: pennylane  on  01/22  at  09:01 AM

…they probably really believe that belittling the power of this moment isn’t racist.
—-Amanda Marcotte

*This* coming from someone who put a woman kicking the shit out of BLACK MEN on the cover of a published book….and then groveling like a toad when it was pointed out how racist it all was…..and then changing the cover and comepletely caving in admintting it?

So what the fuck does this person know about ‘racism’??

It’s crazies like this that want to tell you what is and what is not ‘racist’. She can’t even give you an objective definition.. She’s clueless.

Probably dyes her hair.

Comment #67: Dr. John  on  01/22  at  04:30 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.