First of all, I don’t care if Bush’s inauguration was the most expensive in history.
Second of all, it wasn’t.
Bill ‘Balanced Budget’ Clinton’s second inauguration apparently cost $42 million in 1997 compared to W’s $40 million yesterday. That means, in an apples-to-apples, inflation-adjusted world, Bill’s 1997 bash cost about 25% more than George’s 2005 bash.
Is this story just plain inaccurate? How could this possibly be missed by all of those harping on Bush? I mean, the media wouldn’t distort something like this intentionally, would they?
In fact, with all the added security, I’m shocked that it isn’t easily the most expensive ever.
Request for those who confronted me personally (as in ‘to my face’) on this: Please explain your position to me again. I think I must have misunderstood what you were getting at.
UPDATE: Ooops. This was via Wizbang.