Bush inauging puppetless

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

“Oh my God,” writes Rob of SemiSkimmed. “They killed our giant protest puppets!

Poles for posters and banners are banned, as are giant papier-mache effigies.

Gigantor puppets are a vital component of modern dumb protesting. They’ll be missed during the inauguration. Rob continues: “And the fascist bastards have only allowed one protest group to actually set up seats and loudspeakers on the route of the parade. I mean, dude, that’s like totally repressive.”

The parade is expensive, too, as Ann Coulter reports:

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!

I wouldn’t mention it, except for the Times’ recent editorial snippily remarking that the amount of foreign aid to tsunami victims offered by the United States within the first few days of the disaster was “less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.” By that logic, why hold the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, or spend money on restaurants and theater productions praised in The New York Times? That money could go to tsunami victims!

Speaking of victims, America’s ABC has lately been hunting for some to sex up its inauguration coverage:

For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20.

If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.

Nice. That request has since vanished from the ABC site, but is captured here. David Von Drehle remains on the loose in red people territory, however, despite E.J. Dionne’s desperate attempts to track him down:

Mile after mile of stubbly winter cornfields elapsed past the condensed steam on the Land Rover’s side windows as we worked our way west, like the cheek of a gigantic albino George Clooney infested with tiny parasitic holsteins. The asphalt ribbon lead us through Grinnell, Des Moines, then Urbandale. I was now farther west than I had ever been.

Read the entire, brilliant piece. Iowahawk is currently functioning at hypercomic level.

Posted by Tim B. on 01/21/2005 at 12:53 AM
    1. “DC police knocked over one tall, ugly puppet before realizing it was actually Senator Kerry.”

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 01/21 at 02:29 AM • #


    1. Imagine the handcuffs the police would have to use on one of those.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 01/21 at 04:52 AM • #


    1. Whither the Purple Penis Puppet People!
      A milisecond of silence please!

      Posted by yojimbo on 01/21 at 06:46 AM • #


    1. I saw some of the grunge protestor kiddies on the subway this morning.  The Junior Trotskyite Brigade and ANSWER twits (but I repeat myself) in action with their stick-less signs, with such witticisms as Bush=Hitler.  “S” in Bush rendered as a swastika.  All-in-all a pretty pathetic and dour looking bunch.  Generally, Republicans seem to have much more fun.

      Posted by dchondarider on 01/21 at 08:23 AM • #


    1. What are they supposed to be protesting anyway???

      Posted by Brian on 01/21 at 09:23 AM • #


    1. Last night, the Australian networks ABC and SBS ran the same story:

      Corporate America pays Bush’s party bill

      (That’s a Reuters article with the same spin – I don’t think the original ABC version is online.)

      *Thinks* What about corporate donations to the Clinton inauguration? Don’t you just love the way they play on the Republican=Evil Corporate America image?

      Also on the ABC website:
      Majority think Bush makes world more dangerous: poll

      Thanks to the BBC for that thought-provoking, informative, and in no way biased poll.

      Posted by TimT on 01/21 at 09:32 AM • #


    1. TimT it reminds me of that obscene “special event” hate-fest on ABC television in 2003…the supposed worldwide survey…”What The World Thinks Of America.” Hosted by Tony Jones and some sneering BBC cretin. How they ever got away with that disgraceful vilification campaign I’ll never know!
      I’ve said it before, but the Left will exploit anything, ie. the tsunami disaster, turn their back on whoever, ie. the 70,000 dead in Darfur, or the 1000 who die each day in the Congo, or whatever, ie. the 20 plus billion dollar oil for food scandal, just to satisfy their own fashionable, decadent ideology. And perpetually trendy anti-Americanism, for these shallow frauds, seems to do just nicely. “Bleeding hearts” my arse! They routinely step over the corpses they can’t use to get to the ones they want. Right now they’re in great anguish over Iraqi dead, however when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dying as a result of failing U.N. sanctions and U.N. facilitated corruption, they couldn’t give a fuck!

      Posted by Brian on 01/21 at 11:42 AM • #


    1. Love the Iowahawk piece, especially since I recognize all the Iowa references from my misspent collegiate years. (I never attended a diversity seminar, but I was known to turn up at the Airliner).

      Posted by Sonetka on 01/21 at 12:31 PM • #


    1. Cirac bans “big crosses”, we in the U.S. respond by outlawing the Pillsbury Dough Boy and the Stay Puffed Giant Marshmellow Man. Are only the Behemoth Nevada Nuclear Ants left to carry on amidst this growning crisis?

      Posted by J. Peden on 01/21 at 12:49 PM • #


    1. Brian, it’s only a democracy when they win.  Otherwise the election was “stolen.”

      Posted by cranky-d on 01/21 at 01:37 PM • #


    1. TimT, though the poll is irrelevant, still, “Analysts said the poll had far-reaching implications, suggesting a serious rise in anti-US feeling in general, with 42 per cent saying it had made them feel worse about Americans compared to 25 per cent who made it think more of them.”

      My take as an unbiased “analyst”: I think a 25% rise is significant, given it is these who perhaps show an understanding of terrorism and freedom, the 42% not understanding it to begin with. Since the 25% “think” and the 42% “feel”, why is that 42% surprising or significant?

      Factor in that India was found to have “thought” Bush’s reelection made the world safer, and the result would be more likely a massive support of the U.S. and Bush, and a repudiation of Kerry et al, in my professional opinion as a member of the Pajama Party.

      But overall, given the esteemed “analysts’” take and the resort to polls as judgements on policy, I am having a serious rise in my level of disgust for ABC.  That’s a 100% “finding” combining both thinking and feeling in a cognitive way.

      Posted by J. Peden on 01/21 at 01:58 PM • #


    1. “For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20.”

      foe what it’s worth, the email form on the ABC page CQ archived still works- I suggested they just collaborate with CBS News and stage a funeral.

      Posted by Glenn Bowen on 01/21 at 03:11 PM • #


    1. Oh please. Quoting Ann Coulter? Shes even more clueless than you make Margo out to be. Her point about the $25mil spent on Clinton is facical, his fifteen million dollars lower. Thats too much as is, but Bush is a far worse offender.

      So its only dumb protesting when you dont agree with it?

      Posted by Nic White on 01/21 at 04:24 PM • #


    1. Get set for our public broadcaster’s 7:00pm news bulletin to be unduly focused on the inaurguration protestors!

      Posted by Brian on 01/21 at 05:04 PM • #


    1. How about today’s ABC news, where Lisa Millar said of George W:

      He has the lowest approval rating of any president since Richard Nixon

      a) WTF
      b) Pardon?
      c) Huh?

      G.W. B. has been one of the only presidents in modern times to win the popular vote, as well as the electoral college votge – so what am I missing here? What abstruse poll or survey is eluding me, that will make sense of Lisa Millar’s words?

      Posted by TimT on 01/21 at 06:09 PM • #


    1. “He has the lowest approval rating of any president since Richard Nixon”

      Didn’t Richard Nixon win one of the biggest landslides in US history?

      Actually, earlier I think it was “lowest approval rating of any re-elected president since Nixon.”

      Now, since Nixon, only Reagan and Clinton have been re-elected.

      So, he’s third. Big whoop.

      Posted by Quentin George on 01/21 at 06:41 PM • #


    1. Nixon took 49 states.  At some point, then, we can conclude his rating was high.

      Nic, calm down and take a breath before you type.

      Posted by ushie on 01/22 at 03:19 AM • #


    1. Iowahawkl reveals all: “Ironically the [Washington] Post had sent Von Drehle on his own mysterious mission – to learn why the natives were suddenly agitating against Post subscription offers.”

      With the left, it’s always, cherchez les bucks.

      The WaPo could have saved a bundle if they had just posted the question here and on a couple of other blogs with brilliant posters.  They would have learned why PDQ.

      Posted by blerp on 01/22 at 06:18 AM • #


    1. Nic:  At 4% inflation, twenty five million in 1993 dollars is actually slightly more than forty million in 2005 dollars. Typically, when a government program grows at that rate, the press claims that funding has been slashed.

      Posted by Sean P on 01/22 at 09:55 AM • #


  1. “Her point about the $25mil spent on Clinton is facical, his fifteen million dollars lower.”

    … Facical?????

    I don’t think Sean P is right about 25 million being more than 40 million after inflation, but the Washington Times says Clinton’s second shindig cost more than $40 million (Were the Clinton-haters asleep at the wheel for that?  C’mon!).

    It’s all just friggin’ numbers anyway, there’s absolutely no reason we can’t have a big fancy party for our presidents.  It’s PRIVATE MONEY.  But maybe some folks will try to just make a law about how people can spend money on stuff?  That always goes over well.  In fact, I’d say it goes over facically.  Whatever facical means.

    Posted by Sortelli on 01/22 at 04:34 PM • #