Just 'cause you won doesn't mean you're better

Today, our President re-elect was re-inaugurated. DC was shut down. Secret Service took control of everything within 5 miles of the White House. High tech spookware spied on everyone, looking for the first hints of evil thoughts and evil deeds. There were concerts, black tie parties, white tie parties, live broadcasts, dignitaries, fancy dinners and all the requisite Washingtonian hoopla.

The price tag for this is going to be $40 million. Pretty staggering amount of money considering we're only talking about a weeks worth of parties. That's a LOT of money. The amount of money being spent has caught the attention of several whiney liberal columnists. The comments have ranged from "pay off the national debt" to "send more relief to the tsunami victims" to "rebuild Iraq" with the money that is being spent on this big party. Yep. They are claiming the moral high ground in this situation, sniffing that if Bush were truly a compassionate conservative surely he could find a better use for this money.

Well, yes he could. He could have done the inauguration in a White House hallway and saved the private donors who payed for this big party (No, your tax dollars are not paying for all of this partying.) an immense amount of money. Or he could have asked them to donate it to a worthy cause, like tsunami victims or the rebuilding of Iraq. Maybe he should have.

What I wish to point out is that the moral high road is only taken when the liberals can impugn a conservative. For instance, none of the columnists I read had anything negative to say about Clinton's inaugural extravaganza(let alone all the other sleaze he brought to the office). Clinton spent 25% more (adjusting for inflation of course)on his second inauguration than Bush is spending. Did the liberal press pout and whine about those dollars being poorly spent? Did they offer Clinton any alternatives to spending all that money on a week of parties? Nope. They partied and partied and partied and then wrote columns about how they wished it could go on forever. They proposed that we change the name of Washington to Clintonville.

Did the liberal press gripe about George Soros spending hundreds of millions (only a fraction of his fortune) in an attempt to ensure that Bush was not re-elected? Did anyone suggest that Soros try to squeak by on $1 billion dollars and spend his remaining $6 billion on Iraq or tsunami victims or welfare mothers? Nope.

Does the liberal press wring their hands about the millions of dollars that Hollywood actors, producers, writers, etc. will spend on the evening of Oscar night? You know that there will be actresses wearing $500,000.00 necklaces and $50,000.00 dresses. You know they will all drive up in gas guzzling limousines. You know they will have the most expensive caviar and the best champagne. Couldn't that money be better spent on homeless children in the Sudan? Where's the outrage over these ridiculous wastes of money?

Just like John Kerry, trying to fake the "religious believer" when he's in an urban church and trying to fake the "gun totin' outdoorsman" when he's out in the country it all rings hollow. The moral superiority is ripe for the taking in this country. We do alot of ridiculous things. We over indulge ourselves day and night. We could be called to account for all manner of perversions and extravagances. But if the light of moral clarity is only shining on one partisan group it amounts to nothing more than a childish display, a poor loser pouting and calling the winner dirty names.