home

Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger Supporters

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:35:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It costs $10k for tickets to all of Bush's inaugural events. Many of his younger supporters, including those that raised $50 and $100k for his campaign, are finding the price too steep for them to attend. What did they expect? They supported an elitest and that's what they got.

< Justice Dept. Issues New Torture Memo | Valerie Plame Investigation Review >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger Supporters | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#1)
    by cp on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:42:37 PM EST
    during wwII, franklin roosevelt, having been re-elected for the 3rd time, decided to forego a lavish inauguration. he felt that, with the nation at war, it would be unseemly. he was right. having asked every american to make sacrifices for the war effort, he felt it would set a poor example to hold an extravaganza in the nation's capital. hence, his inauguration in 1945 was a subdued affair. pres. roosevelt was a wealthy man, having been born into a well-to-do new york family. he, and his friends, certainly could have afforded a luxurious event, with no strain on their wallets. that, however, wasn't the point. the nation was, and had been at war. three years of slaughter and sacrifice would, in his mind, have been dishonored by an ostentatious display. of course, his decisions were the result of good breeding and taste.

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 06:25:41 AM EST
    cp - Yep, I googled that too. Of course the war in 1944 was much different than today - we weren't certain we were going to win, the press was on our side, etc, etc. :-) =C

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#3)
    by wishful on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:17:43 AM EST
    Of course, Cliff, that makes all the difference. Just ask the families of the fallen soidiers.

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#4)
    by cp on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    cliff, i didn't google anything, that came off the top of my head. some of us have an actual working knowledge of our own country's history. since bush himself has admitted that we can't "win" the "war" on terrorism, and the "war" in iraq isn't exactly going gangbusters for us, how does this differ again with 1944? especially since by jan. 1945, it was pretty clear we were going to defeat both nazi germany and japan, absent some cataclysmic event. it was, at that point, a matter of time. the successful breach of the atlantic defenses in june, 1944 pretty much spelled the end in europe. that was recognized even then, that's why the yalta conference was held. why bother deciding how you plan to occupy a defeated enemy, unless you're pretty certain of defeating him?

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    All actions by Republican are crass. Think about it! If they don't drop what they are doing to work on the asian tsunami problem, they are in the wrong. (W. on vacation) If they drop what they are doing to work on the tsunami problem, they are in the wrong. (Powell and Jeb Bush) The world will be a much better place when we can all just be grown up enough to admit that Republicans are always wrong. [SMS, you are limited to four comments a day on TalkLeft. All comments in excess of this will be deleted (your correction is not counted as one, so with that, you get five today.)]

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#6)
    by cp on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:17:58 PM EST
    one thing i do have to take issue with tl on this, the concept of an "elitest" being strictly a bushian trait. hardly the case. go through american history, and it will the rare bird who wasn't wealthy and elitest and president. john kerry is wealthy and elitest. the right has co-opted the term, and made it a pejorative, and you've been sucked right in. when did being elite become a bad thing? i'll make a confession, i'm a cpa. i work very diligently to be the best at what i do, to constantly improve my knowledge and skills. if that makes me elitest, i can live with it. funny, we constantly make referrence to the "elite" groups, in all professions, as a positive. we point them out as something to aspire to, not to denigrate them. i want the "elite" plumber putting my pipes in, not some second-rate one. elitism, by itself, is neither good or bad. actually, this current group is a bunch of wannabe elitests. the truth is, they suffer from delusions of mediocrity.

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:23:14 AM EST
    good analysis on the values of elitism, cp. Actually though I think the repubs have usually made the charge of elitism. Usually in the context of association with university professors, academicians, hollywood,and various other ivory tower occupations. The Dubya crowd would be elite in the realm of robber baron activity. I disagree with your notion that this group suffers from delusions of mediocrity (though I doff my hat to the nice phrasing). I think most progressives do not believe their ideas and pursuits to be mediocre. We work in the realm of Jesus, Gandhi, MLK Jr. We might all strive to that level of mediocrity.

    Re: Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger S (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:24:01 AM EST
    We are off topic. I will not be attending the inaugural events. Too spendy. Wrong team.

    Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger Supporters | 8 comments (8 topical)