Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Griff
Is it possible folks who go for this 2nd inaugural stuff are all thinking about the famous actor on the balcony in this shot?
|
I don't understand your point. If it is a reference to a need for tight security, then I still don't know what that has to do with having a big party for a 2nd term Prez.
My point is simply that a lot of money and effort is being spent to commemorate nothing. Bush was president, and will continue to be president. There is no change. There is nothing new or different. There is no need to mark this particular date as being momentous, because it will be just like the day before. It is not momentous.
I fully understand and agree with the idea of throwing a party when a new president comes in. But second term presidents are not new. I don't think it calls for a party, and this one is more extravagant than the last one.
Private funds pay for all the balls, but the Federal Government shuts down for the day. All the employees get a paid day off. The streets are closed for the parade, and security costs go through the roof as every cop in DC gets put on overtime, and all Secret Service agents do too. Expensive stands are built. Planning sessions are made. Etc. Etc. The Federal Government spends a lot of money to mark the passage from Bush to Bush.
I felt the same way for Clinton, but was less strongly opposed back then, because I got the day off, and I voted for the guy.
This hoopla should only be for 1st term presidents.