Saturday, January 17, 2009

Fair Comparison? Not!

The Obama Administration is throwing a multi-million dollar Inauguration Party with a "Lincoln" theme. I think it's ludicrous for President-elect Obama to compare himself to President Lincoln. The only things he has in common with Lincoln are they both represented Illinois, they're both skinny, and they both have big ears. They're not even in the same party! To compare today's problems with what Lincoln faced shows a basic ignorance of history. Lincoln was faced with the destruction of the Union, and the deaths of 600,000 Americans. He had to make decisions from a White House with an enemy literally knocking on the back door. Yes, the slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War and I guess that eventually led to a society that would elect a white President with a black father, but that in no way makes Obama the new Lincoln, which is what I think his PR people are trying to imply. Obama needs to walk the walk before he talks the talk. I'm so looking forward to Obama doing a better job than his predecessor. So far we have an exponentially increasing deficit , tax increases, the stock market in a prolonged nose dive since November 4th, a European (wait all day) type health care system, the hobbling of our intelligence community, low morale of our military, and a United Nations oriented foreign policy to look forward to. Should be interesting.


vwatt said...

I agree that the two Presidents face a totally different set of problems created by their predecessors-in Lincoln's case by the worst President so far-Buchanan, who failed to challenge the spread of slavery and the growing bloc of confederates states; and we all know more than we want to about Obama's predecessor who will probably take over Buchanan's spot within 10 years. Maybe that's the Lincoln connection!! I am experiencing such a feeling of relief over the end of Bush's Presidency that I almost feel sorry for him and find it hard to work up the energy to bash him anymore. As one blogger on another website recently wrote, "At this point, whatever it takes to make him(Bush) feel good about himself and just leave-someone give him a T-shirt that says I AM NOT A LOSER and lets be done with him." Anytime someone in office has to use his remaining months "splaining" to us the great things that he did, you know something is going on !!

Mike West said...

He's already been called the Messiah.
Lincoln would be a step down.
This country is headed down a very scary path; and I'm an optimist. Crooks giving money to crooks. My slogan for the so-called bailout debacle. IMO - 2009 will be one of the most perplexing years in history as we experience a paradigm shift into a socialistic society. BTW - Not real interested in the oil paintings from the first comment.
Also I totally disagree with Vance's opinion of Bush's legacy. I'm thankful he stood up to the opinion polls.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Problems created by their predecessors . . . Hmmm . . I wonder what sort of problems were created by Bush's predecessor. Let's see, Bush also inherited a recession and a bubble burst. Bush inherited a demoralized military. Bush inherited an intelligence communtity and State Department convinced of WMD in Iraq. Bush inherited a FBI, CIA, and DIA unable to connect the dots, which if they had been able, might have prevented 9/11. Bush inherited a country demoralized and embarrassed by the immoral, adolescent activities of it's President. . Yep. I can see where predecessors can cause problems.

vwatt said...

Preemptive Strike: I know this is another big "Faux" News "story", soon to probably appear on the blog, so just in case:

"However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?

—Eric Boehlert
Comments (178) - Join the Discussion