That said, Ann Coulter's latest screed on this very issue shows her continuing lack of clarity whatsoever. Basically, she brings up the terrible events that happened in the winter of 2003 (President Clinton's first inauguration), and makes the comparison. The difference is that Ann can't really make a death toll in 1993 even compare to the death toll in the recent Tsunami.
She shoots herself in the foot by noting the initial skimpy (even stingy) amount proposed by the Bush Administration (less than half of the cost of the Inauguration).
And then there's this paragraph, with characteristic and breathtaking meanspiritedness.
The spokesman for Clinton's 1993 Inaugural Committee said the inaugural events would cost about $25 million - largesse exceeded only by the $50 million Ken Starr was forced to spend when "Clintonland" turned out to be populated with felons. Think of all the starving children in Angola, Somalia, Bosnia and elsewhere that $25 million could have fed! And don't even get me started on Michael Moore's "on location" food budget!OK. First of all, $25 Million is half of what President Bush is spending (according to the Conservative Washington Times, which pegs it at $50 Million, not counting security), so why would you noted that? Secondly why are you obsessed with Clinton Ann? He's been out of office four years, you still gotta bring up Ken Starr and his witch hunt? And of course mentioning Michael Moore's weight is irrelevant (although I'm sure it gets big laughs out there in her audience.
She then takes on Hollywood liberals, intimating that they should abandon the oscars, golden globes and so on and send the money to Tsunami victims. Of course she ignores the fact that many Hollywood liberals have donated large chunks of money to help Tsunami victims. But why strive for accuracy when you are on a roll?
The truth is that the initial offer by the Bush Administration was pathetically small, a fact that even the Bush Administration seems to have grasped. It was a figure that was not worthy of this great nation. It was a figure that was not worthy of the generous American people. And it was a figure wholly inadequate to the problems at hand. If comparing it to the planned inauguration festivities loosened the Bush administration's fingers, than I wholeheartedly support that comparison.
That said, and to return to the initial point of this post, they did have their fingers loosened, and have since pledged a far more appropriate amount (although there is some legitimate concern over whether the Bush Administration will actually send the money). So I wish the Bush administration and their supporters a happy inauguration.
Of course tomorrow and the rest of the term I'd expect a more belligerent stance from this website.
No comments:
Post a Comment