Talk:Obama inauguration

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inauguration Costs

The cost stays. Everyone knows it wasn't an email rumor. Maybe the exact figures are off, but nonetheless it stays.--Jpatt 15:10, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Then you should use a different source. The source you've selected says it's a false rumour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnKite (talk)
"The $120 million cited for Obama (which is actually a bit on the low side)"

You provide a source that says different. --Jpatt 15:16, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed. This is not the right referece for the claim. "[I]naccurate and misleading", as per the reference. CherylE 15:30, 30 January 2009 (EST)
What part of the claim is inaccurate? False comparisons? the dollar figure? Because says it is mostly false or email rumour? After reading and re-reading, the claims I made were accurate.--Jpatt 15:38, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Honestly, I don't know if we're reading the same article. The article is clear about the figures being "inaccurate and misleading". Did you notice at the top it says:
Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Jan. 2009
Status: Mostly false
If you want to continue to perpetuate these claims, I suggest using a source not focused on highlighting their nature. How about this?
The headline hypocrisy is real and important, but the source goes on to make a mockery of our article's previous claim about costs. I will try to resource the newspaper headlines and then we can use the article as a source for costs. How does that sound? CherylE 15:59, 30 January 2009 (EST)
That's fine CherylE, I am happy with that source. But like I said, you still can't name what is false about the article I presented. If you read the article over and over as I did, is making claims that the comparison is false, but it goes on to tell the readers what is true. What I have posted does not contradict, you just have a problem with the article stating falsehood.--Jpatt 16:20, 30 January 2009 (EST)
You are right, nothing is false in that article. The thing is that it completely discredited our article's previous claim about costs. The new source attests to both claims about the headline hypocrisy and inauguration spending comparisons. CherylE 16:26, 30 January 2009 (EST)
  • Hey, still around? --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:33, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Yessir CherylE 16:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Would you do me one small favor? --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:45, 30 January 2009 (EST)
It would be my pleasure, how can I help you? CherylE 16:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)


I feel the additional information about Bush inauguration should not be included on this page. Quotes from MediaMatters (leftwing fake watchdogs) should be deleted. --Jpatt 20:41, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Why? The real question is, are they right? What does the $44 million figure include? What does the $160 million figure include? I have no idea, but their article seems better sourced than the Lakeland Times one, which gives no sources whatsoever. I'm not saying I agree with either side, but since they are so different, I think it makes sense to include both and let the reader decide which is more credible, at least until we can dig up more information to verify one or the other. --Hsmom 20:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks to your source, Conservapedia is the only website claiming Bush inauguration cost more than Obama's. I am about to delete all reference to Bush's inauguration costs and leave Obama's cost may be $160 million.--Jpatt 21:02, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Jpatt, do any of the web sites you've read explain their numbers? (Where they got them and/or what they cover?) Perhaps by looking at those sites we can find credible sources for the claim that Obama's cost so much more than Bush's, which would be a great service to the Conservative cause. --Hsmom 21:40, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Jpatt, I have to side with Hsmom on this one and ask that her contribution be restored. She found a reputable source to back up a sensible finding - the cost of the latest inauguration (Obama's) was comparable to that of the last president (Bush). What's important is not whether Conservapedia disagrees with with other conservative news sources and blogs as to which event cost more - what's important is that CP presents the facts and truth about things, and backs those contributions up with good references. When valid, factual content is removed because it "comes from the MSM" or is considered by some to be "liberal claptrap", it diminishes the credibility of this site. If you don't like the conclusion Hsmom arrived at with her sources, don't remove it - come up with a factual reference to rebut it. --DinsdaleP 09:45, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Here are the sources I have found, including a few more, from both sides. It's worth reading each article in full. Note carefully where each author gets their numbers. --Hsmom 10:05, 31 January 2009 (EST)
  • The New York Daily News said, "It will take Barack Obama less than a minute to recite the oath of office -- and when he’s done dancing at the inaugural balls Jan. 20, the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million. Obama’s inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005. In 1993, Clinton spent $33 million when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years." [1]
  • The UK's Guardian said, "President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993." [2]
  • Gregg Walker, publisher of the Lakeland Times, said, "The president and his team spent close to $160 million on his inauguration at a time when this nation is teetering on the brink of a depression. No matter how you cut it, that's over the top, and the president would have known so if he had ever bothered to look into the faces of the crowds around him and seen the pain in their eyes."[3]
  • Fox News' Sean Hannity said, "the cost of Obama's inaugural will dwarf past celebrations and make those of President Bush's look like budget bashes".[4]
  • states that "Claims of a huge disparity are untrue. Actually, an apples-to-apples comparison shows that the two inaugurations likely cost about the same."[5]
  • The New York Times notes that, "In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; 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."[6]
  • states that "The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work."[7]
Well considering the amount of time Hsmom put in and I respect DinsdaleP, I guess you can put the facts in without my objections. To me, it was getting a little off track. This is Obama's inauguration page, not Bush's. However, in light of what transpired above, maybe a comparison section is needed.--Jpatt 13:33, 31 January 2009 (EST)
  1. New York Daily News, Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million, by Michael Saul, Updated Wednesday, January 14th 2009 [1]
  2., Obama's inauguration set to be the most expensive in US history, The $150m (£102m) cost of the celebration will dwarf the amount spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005, by Ewen MacAskill, 14 January 2009 [2]
  3. Lakeland Times, The American people need a leader, by Gregg Walker (Publisher), 1/30/2009[3]
  4., Obama Inauguration Price Tag, by Sean Hannity, Tuesday, January 20, 2009[4]
  5., Q: Did Barack Obama's inauguration really cost 4 times as much as George Bush's 2005 inauguration?, by Joe Miller, January 21, 2009 [5]
  6. New York Times, Obama’s Inauguration Fund-Raising Tops $24 Million, by Katharine Q. Seelye, published January 5, 2009 [6]
  7., The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration, by Eric Boehlert, Jan 17, 2009[7]