Cynical Nation

Okay, that's appalling. I wonder where the Washington Times got that number from? I actually haven't seen that number anywhere else. Googling "Clinton inauguration 1997 cost" - I found the cost to be somewhere in the vicinity of $30 million ($29.6 million - from the Washington Post and the Albany Times), which is still ridiculous, especially for a second inauguration.

I'd never seen this figure before either. Perhaps the reason is that even the Clinton-obsessed right wing didn't stoop to such an absurd level of minutiae in their efforts to turbo WJC.

Good catch, CRB.

That's a good question. Upon further research, different publications place the cost between $29MM and $33MM. Perhaps those lower numbers didn't include the cost of security.

Also, correcting for a modest inflation rate over the past 8 years would tack on another 5 Mil or so.

Hey, is anybody but me old enough to remember all the media ballyhoo about Rosalyn Carter wearing the same dress to the inaugural ball that she wore to the gubernatorial ball in Georgia four years earlier? Lol.

Hey, K, they pulled that number out of their asses, the same place they pull the rest of their so-called "news."

I love the smell of hoop-jumping in the morning. Or of otherwise intelligent people doing whatever they have to do to worship their very flawed god.

Jill, why so tense? :-)

"Jill, why so tense? :-)"

As long as she doesn't come to my house and try to kill me.

http://www.cynicalnation.com/archives/2005_01.html#000788

You never know these days. ;)

I read the article and the Times offered no information as to wher they came up with the number.

Until that time, I will remain skeptical.

Look, you can be like me, and complain about things like the stubborn refusal to consider raising taxes when the nation obviously needs more money coming in to run itself, or you can complain about the President's private life and recreational activities. Since the latter is obviously more interesting, and no one's found a secret girlfied hiding in a closet, expensive parties are all people have to complain about, and so they will.

Someone did a lexus-nexus search and found the following from the january 20, 1997 USA Today:

The public buys a ticket--For $12.7 million
Hasson, Judi. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Jan 20, 1997. pg. A.6

Subjects: Inaugurations, Public finance
Document types: News
ISSN/ISBN: 07347456
Document URL:

Abstract (Document Summary)
The last inauguration of the 20th century, on Jan 20, 1997, will cost more than $42 million including $12.7 million paid by taxpayers, the costliest in history. The public will pay for everything from overtime for federal workers to a computer logistics system that will be turned over for military use.

Any thoughts, Jill?

Nice work, Mal!

Don't expect to hear an answer from Jill, though. She usually prefers to just quietly melt back into the darkness when she's confronted with "inconvenient" facts. ;-)

Why do all you wingnuts assume that just because Bill Clinton did something, that automatically precludes anyone from complaining when Bush does anything remotely similar? Just because you all worship George W. Bush doesn't mean we all worship Clinton.

Oh Christ, it's another one.

I don't assume anything, John. I just object to selective indignation, that's all.

I was actually fairly fond of Clinton as a president. And contrary to what you and Jill think, I do not *worship* Bush.

Now how in the hell did you get to be PM of Australia?!?

>

John, let's put it this way: why do Democrats keep attacking Bush for things that they never criticized "Our Bill" for?

Can you provide me with quotes from Republicans harrumphing about the 'waste' of Clinton's bacchanalia?

That is the relevant question here.

Nice attempt at misdirection, however!