More Media Lies About Obama: Inauguration Edition

I can admit that I was inclined to believe the press reports that President Elect Barack Obama was set to break the record for costs of an Inauguration. I didn't really read to much into it. My thinking is over time we always end up paying more for things. But then the reports came out that the price tag was over $100 million and that was supposedly 4 times what Bush's innauguration cost. Honestly, although I should know better, I never thought about whether or not the media was lying. The story was reported by so many different sources that I just ASSumed it was right. I wasn't exactly mortified by the numbers but I did think there was a chance that it might reflect badly on Obama that in a time of economic crisis, that kind of green was being spent on swearing him in. And sure enough the WingNuts were having a field day with the story.

But as I said in an earlier post today, our new media goes a long way in terms of helping to dispel false stories like this one so that Democrats aren't railroaded like they would have been in the past. This time MediaMatters.org does the honors:

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. 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.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

snip

Unfortunately, that didn't matter. At least not to conservative partisans who grabbed onto the Daily Mail story (via Drudge) and announced a blatant hypocrisy existed within the press because, they claimed, four years earlier, reporters and liberal pundits raised questions about the cost of Bush's inauguration, but suddenly were mum about Obama's, even though at $160 million, it was going to cost nearly four times as much as Bush's bash. (Actually, it wasn't just liberals or the press raising questions about the Bush inauguration; a strong majority of Americans wished Bush, during a time of war, had scaled back the glitz for his second swearing-in.)

Online, the inauguration condemnations were swift and fierce. The cost of "Obama's upcoming celebration" was "dwarfing" any previous swearing-in expenses and was climbing into "the $100 millions," claimed right-wing weblog The Jawa Report, which relied on the Daily Mail for its misinformation.

The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.

snip

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment

snip

The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration's unprecedented move to turn the nation's capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?

Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration," The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: "[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government."

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "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" [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

Now undoubtedly over the next 4 years there will be negative press written about President Obama that is true and there is no getting around that. But I would advise you that when you do read one of those negative articles to go to sites like MediaMatters just to make sure the story is on the up and up before you decide how you feel about it.

Et Tu Rev. Lowery? Oh Noes

So I was just watching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on MSNBC and as I said earlier I am fast becoming a fan. Well tonight David Shuster had on Reverend Joseph Lowery who will be giving the benediction for the inauguration to answer questions about Rev. Rick Warren being on the same program giving the invocation. But a strange thing happened on the way to the Ball. You see Rev. Lowery, who has in fact been a long time crusader for civil rights of all peoples, corrected David Shuster when he said that Rev. Lowery supports gay marriage. Rev. Lowery in his own words says that he has never said that he endorses gay marriage but he does endorse civil unions. Now I DARE John Cloud or any of his homeboys to call Rev. Lowery a bigot as they did President Elect Barack Obama. Nay I DOUBLE DARE you. I would say this puts the issue of whether people who support civil unions are bigots or not to bed forever. Period. End of discussion.

Que the video.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Is The Anderson Silva Of Political Jui Jitsu UPDATED

So we are in day 5 of the meltdown over the Rick Warren pick to do the invocation at the inauguration. Now to be clear once again I will reaffirm my disdain for Rick Warren. Not only is he a homophobe, but he is also a bald faced liar when it comes to Prop 8. I think there is something in the Ten Commandments about bearing false witness but I digress. There has been outrage directed at President Elect Barack Obama however that I believe is way over the top. Besides that there has been, in my opinion a wrong headed analysis but some on the left who have concluded that the choice of Warren does nothing for Obama politically. Well I have to call bullshit on that. I don't personally feel that the choice of Rick Warren is purely politically as Obama has given him praise during the campaign and they have some common interests including climate change and AIDS relief issues. But on the political level I don't think anybody can honestly argue that this is a bad move. Its actually a great move politically if you ask me and allow me to explain.

The plain and simple truth is that Obama has a much better chance of picking up evangelical votes with this pick than he does losing LGBT votes. If you want to look at this through a purely political lens its actually brilliant no two ways about it. Exit polls showed that he garnered 70% of the LGBT vote. How much higher a percentage could he possibly get from that constituency? But with evangelicals he only garnered about 30% of their votes and he has a whole lot of room to grow. The truth is whether we like it or not LGBT folk won't be voting Republican any time soon. Now maybe they stay at home but I am not buying it. Most of them aren't single issue voters and if Obama gets the economy back on track, gets us out of Iraq, and repeals DADT I can't see them risking letting Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee both of which are TRUE gay haters come to power in 2012.

But with evangelicals you have to remember that there was a substantial bunch in the group that believed and perhaps still do believe that Obama is a muslim marxist socialist who kills babies and eats them for breakfast. We laugh but I have had to have heated arguments over people who were so caught up on the faux born alive scandal that they literally acted as if Obama was in a hospital some where with a hammer. And yet he still got almost 30 percent of that vote. And giving Rick Warren a platform at the inauguration is another thing that is going to make their head swirl about Obama. They are already amazed that he didn't name Bill Ayers as his Secretary of Defense. They are already amazed that Rev Wright isn't his Secretary of State. So now that he actually reached out to an evangelical who he clearly doesn't agree with on many issues he is going to at least make them question all of the beliefs they had about him pre election. And if he comes through on most if not all of his campaign pledges then many of those evangelicals are going to vote their best interests in 2012 rather than voting their fears.

Evangelicals are not some hive mind that are totally inflexible. The fact that many religious leaders are now coming out and saying that voting for a candidate that is pro choice is not a mortal sin shows that there is room for compromise IMHO. And whether people understand or get it or not, Rick Warren's followers are not just evangelicals. There are plenty of people who would never classify themselves as evangelical and might not even go to church who think his "Purpose Driven Life" books are the best books they have ever read. Hell I have a two different copies of the book here at my house that were both gifted to me for Christmas two years ago. Do you think that made me vote for McCain?

The real question in a political lens is this, do you try to reach out to a group of over 20 million who has bought books from this man and respect him and his opinions or do you try to reach out to a group that you already have over 70 percent support from and whom your opposition consistently and repeatedly villifies? I think the answer to that question is a no brainer.

Besides that think about what one of his potential rivals in 2012 has said about the Warren pick. Lets take MIke Huckabee.

HUCKABEE: Well, it’s ridiculous for people to be upset with Rick Warren. He’s one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation. I’ve known Rick for over 30 years. We were actually in seminary together in Ft. Worth, Texas, back in the mid-1970s. He is today what he always has been, and that’s a humble, gracious, thoughtful, very intellectual capable person. I think it’s a wonderful thing that Barack Obama reached out to him. I thought it was a tremendous expression on Barack Obama’s part. I’m proud that Rick Warren is going to do it and I think that people ought to recognize…look, that’s part of what being religious is all about. You have strong convictions and nobody is going to have a religious leader who is in agreement with everybody.

Now as the rival who is most likely to bring culturally conservative issues into the race for President in 2012 don't you think its going to be pretty hard for Huckabee to paint Obama as a radical after that kind of praise? Better yet between now and then you will have people like Sean Hannity who will HAVE to defend the choice of Warren to do the inauguration because he has aligned himself with Warren's views. So once again the hypocrisy will be on record for use four years from now.

As a more immediate political motive has anybody else noticed how the whole faux Blago Gate scandal wrt President Elect Obama has pretty much fizzled since the Warren choice came to light? Ask yourself a question, why was that information made available before the new year when they knew it would spark some controversy? Hmmmmm.

Now I will reiterate that yes Rick Warren is a bigot and yes I understand why people are upset about him giving the invocation. But you can't possibly convince me that this is a bad move politically. The invitation of Rick Warren to do the invocation is setting Obama up to do give a rear naked choke to his Republican opponents in 2012.

Update: Don't faint but even Pat Robertson has weighed in with support for President Elect Obama. From thinkprogress

Despite having “grave misgivings about him” earlier, Robertson said he now lauds Obama for picking a “middle-of-the road Cabinet.” “I’m very pleased so far,” he concluded

Finally The Truth Comes Out

Thank you again Media Matters for illustrating the hypocrisy of Rick Warren's rhetoric on Prop 8 in California. LGBT activists would do well to bang this drum instead of trying to demean President Elect Barack Obama for inviting Warren to do the invocation at the inauguration IMHO. The more people learn that he was lying through his teeth the more he will lose his prestige and the trust of the people that follow him. From Media Matters:

During her December 19 Dateline NBC report on Rev. Rick Warren, after noting Warren's support for California's Proposition 8 -- which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage -- co-host Ann Curry reported that "Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage." Curry then added, "But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded, and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights." As Media Matters for America documented, while previewing her interview with Warren the day before, Curry uncritically reported that Warren "was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage," echoing the falsehood that had Proposition 8 not passed, members of the clergy could have been restricted in what they could say in the pulpit and could have been forced to perform same-sex marriages.

In fact, Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Court decision it sought to overturn had nothing to do with members of the clergy, and did not address their actions or speech in any way. As Media Matters has documented, the California Supreme Court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

Why Im Meh About Rick Warren

John Cole over at Balloon Juice hits the ball out of the park about why Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration doesn't give me the willies. Its about President Elect Barack Obama, not about Rick Warren.

I just heard Harry Knox from the Human Rights Campaign on CNN state that Barack Obama has just told gays and lesbians that they are not welcome. This is not only obnoxious and silly, but factually it is not the case:

Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois:
Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Barack Obama in the United States Senate:
Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here’s how HRC rated Barack Obama:

Barack Obama on Hate Crimes:
Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Employment Non-Discrimination:
Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

The list goes on over at Cole's site and I think this is needed for folks to keep their perspective in all this. I am concerned about policy not symbols and Obama has already shown himself to be a friend to the LGBT movement. For people to say otherwise is actually a slap to HIS face in my opinion.

Is Rick Warren Welcome In The Log Cabin?

I will be honest, the selection by President Elect Barack Obama of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration doesn't really move me the way it has some liberals. I understand the outrage because of his recent comments about >homosexuality and gay marriage(although he did endorse civil unions) but the truth IMHO is that there are a helluva lot more preachers in this country who agree with his views on those issues than those who disagree (also I am at least AS troubled by his comments endorsing the assassination of world leaders). And I also understand that there are a lot of rank and file citizens in this country who believe in granting gay couples at least civil unions who have at least one of Warren's books in their home and or office. The truth to me is that ANYBODY who was chosen would be a controversial pick due to all of the "Obama is a Moooslem" smears and the whole Reverend Wright fiasco. The most important thing about the selection to me is that it will resonate with the largest swath of America. You can agree with a religious leader on many issues without agreeing him on others and there are a lot of people who feel like "Purpose Driven Life" has really helped them in their day to day.

But what thing I am wondering about is where are the Log Cabin Republicans these days? These are people who support a Republican party that wants to act as if they don't even exist. If you listen to 99% of Republican officials you would think that all gay people are lefty librul Democrats intent on ruining America. Newt Gingrich, supposedly a leading Republican "thinker", has said there is gay people who want gay marriage are fascists who want to "impose their will on America". Talk about voting against your personal interests. To me it would be like a section of black folks supporting the Dixiecrats back in the day because they wanted to pay lower taxes for their segregated schools. I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

So Log Cabiners, on this Rick Warren issue, what say you?

Update: Ta Nehisi Coates over at the Atlantic points out that Pastor Joe Lowery, who is an outspoken supporter of gay rights, will also be on the inauguration program giving the benediction. I am waiting to see if the liberals who are throwing Obama under the bus will at least give him his props for that.