What was Wrong is Now Right

In 2005 as we approached President Bush's inauguration Democrats criticized President Bush for spending about $42 million on his inauguration and the surrounding festivities.  Those criticizing the president believed that during a time of war, and economic difficulty the president needed to tone down the occasion.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate.

These two representative were just the tip of the iceberg.  Here is an extensive list of liberals who criticized the "extravagance" of President Bush's inauguration.  The BBC even took the time to criticize President Bush on this point as well.  

Now as we look forward to the inauguration of the first black president, Barack Obama, it is expected to cost over $150 million.  This is four times what President Bush's 2005 inauguration cost.  If there ever was a time for the American people to be more frugal, it is now.  Unemployment is on the rise, financial institutions are failing, the stock market is in a bad shape, and the congress is working on its second massive bailout package.  In addition to this $150 million the federal government was forced to declare the event a federal emergency because of the number of people coming to D.C.  This opens up even more federal money to help cover the security costs of the event.

In response to criticism that the inauguration may be too costly, the inaugural committee spokeswoman said, "That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it.  It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."  Is it really possible that if the country opposed a $42 million inauguration four years ago, it loves the idea of a $150 million inauguration in the present economic condition?

Maybe part of the change we can believe in this 21st century presidency is that what was wrong is now right.  If that is true though, how can you believe in something if it might be wrong a couple years down the road? 

The thrill of victory... and the agony of defeat

In Virginia if the margin of victory in an election is within .5%, the loser may request a recount.

Over the past three years Virginia has had three races that have fallen within the .5% margin of victory.

2005

Initial reults reported Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in the race for Attorney General's race by 323 votes.

2006

Jim Webb defeated incumbent senator, George Allen, by 9,000 votes out of over 2 million votes cast, a margin of victory of about .45 %

2007

After the canvassing was completed in the race for Virginia's 37th senate district, Ken Cuccinelli was still leading Janet Olsezek by 92 votes, a margin of .2%.

So what's the point of all these boring numbers? I just want to take a moment to point out who it was that called for recounts. Only the Democrats can't handle being defeated. Creigh Deeds dragged the state through a recount, and spent thousands of taxpayers dollars to make sure we counted everyone's vote. When the recount finally ended in the middle of December, Bob McDonnell's margin of victory actually increased by thirty seven votes. In 2006 with control of the senate hanging on t outcome of his senate race, George Allen chose not to drag the state, and the country, through a recount. He waited to see the results of the canvass, and then stepped out in front of the cameras, thanked his supporters for all their work, thanked teh state for electing him before, and then conceeded. Now in 2007 after the canvass was completed, Janet Olsezek, or was it her campaign manager, has called for a recount in one of the closest VA state senate races ever.

But why would Janet pull the people she wants through a recount and spend thousands of taxpayers dollars on this? Is there anything to indicate that the recount could change the outcome of the election? No. The canvassing changed nothing, and the provisional ballots actually gave Ken one more vote. No concrete accusation of voter fraud have been leveled. So why cal for a recount unless you simply can't stand losing?

While many things can be learned from George Allen's senate race, one lesson is when you have lost, be willing to concede. The only to call for a recount would be if there are serious instances of voting fraud, like more votes cast in a county than its registered voters. Virginia has never had major voter fraud, and there has never been a real reason to call for a recount. Anyone that loses a close race should have the courae to concede.

Memo to Democrat candidates: While defeat is agonizing, don't be too shocked if you lose while running against the rising conservative stars in Virginia.