The inaugural issue
More and more people are complaining about Bush's $40 million inaugural gala. Not that it's funded by tax dollars (it isn't), but that it's somehow... just, well, you know, wrong during a time of war.
Without addressing the aesthetics of it, this strikes me as one of these "unprecedented expectation" issues that Bush continually seems to run afoul of (Bush is, for example, the first president who's ever been expected to staff his cabinet with people who oppose his agenda.)
I'm just curious, have presidents ever forgone inaugural balls during wartime? I'm told FDR had a "modest," or "scaled down" ball during WWII, and some have tried to turn that into a precedent. It's worth pointing out, however, that the situations are very different. First, there were severe shortages and rationing during those days. Second, FDR inaugurations were beginning to be old hat. Christ, the guy had more inaugurations than most people have TV dinners. After the 47th one or so, they probably begin to lose their luster.
I dunno. God knows there are valid reasons to criticize Bush, but when the ABB crowd focuses on minutiae like this it weakens their case. They come across less like reasoning critics, and more like Statler & Waldorf, hell-bent on carping about every. single. goddamn. thing this administration does, no matter how insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Whatever. I'm still boycotting.