What is remarkable, however, is the double standard in the media's coverage depending on just who, exactly, is being inaugurated. Apparently, the cost of the Obama inauguration will be a record, at $150 million dollars or more.
Well, okay. It is what it is -- and most of it is being financed, not by the government, but by "the rich" (perhaps they're celebrating the prospect of being able to pay more taxes in a year or two?). But given the way that the MSM has covered GOP inaugurations, it's hard to believe they'd be so complacent -- no, so downright joyous -- about such excess in a time of economic hardship were it John McCain's inauguration, rather than Barack Obama's.
Take a look at this New York Times piece from 2004 -- "Price of Bush Inauguration Party Is Too Rich for Some." Or look at the other examples amassed by Rush and by the good folks at the Media Research Institute.
Funny, I doubt that the solons of the MSM will be telling us how many children that $150 million could vaccinate -- or how much armor it could buy for the military. And this time, it's unlikely (ahem!) that ABC will be asking for tips, say, on how many Americans are shivering in the cold as the Obamaniac elite celebrate in luxury and splendor.
Again, that's fine by me. That kind of coverage is, in my view, unwarranted on Inauguration Day. But could we have the same standards for presidents from both parties, please?