Laura Bush gives the Obama family the middle finger.

Wow!  I tried Blearc and I can not find her! Is this like the child blaming all messes on their imaginary friend?

 the substantial difference in the approval ratings between Bush and Obama

It would take a complete idiot to have anything but a high approval rating BEFORE you take office, so I'm not sure exactly what that comment adds in value to the conversation.

You people are creating a story out of nothing, which is typical of the fanatics on both sides. The Blair House is always made available for the incoming president and his family from the 15th to the 20th of January. No president has moved into the Blair House before this date. The PO cannot share the house with other dignitaries as this would cause huge security concerns. Obama is just find in his $20,000 a night suite at the Hay-Adams

Rachel Maddow is a radical left-wing nutjob, the same way that Ann Coulter is a right-wing radical nutjob.

Rachel Maddow is a radical left-wing nutjob, the same way that Ann Coulter is a right-wing radical nutjob.

Hardly.  Maddow doesn't peddle hate, talk over her guests, and is respectful and uses facts.  Unlike Ann, who mainstreams hate into her veins and doesn't let facts get in her way.

America's Voice:

No president has moved into the Blair House before this date.

False, and demonstrably so.  Take a look at the Blair House guest register.  President-Elect William Jefferson Clinton signed in on December 8th, 1992.

Oh no, she never does... What planet are you on?

... Messiah finds a manger

Now that is rich, coming from a "the Lord and Savior Obama the Messiah" accolyte, presumably.

You people

Has anything worth reading ever started with these two words?

Rachel Maddow is a radical left-wing nutjob, the same way that Ann Coulter is a right-wing radical nutjob.

Hold on one gosh darn minute there!  Rachel obviously eats, Ann does not. Rachel smiles, and even laughs. Ann does not. Rachel has a brain, not just a wha wha gizmo atattched to the scrawniest legs I ever saw. Wellll, I never!!!!

rnoel,

You people
Has anything worth reading ever started with these two words?

 
No....including post #3.8

 No....including post #3.8

 You must mean Post #3.3.  That's ok, I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part.

You must mean Post #3.3.  That's ok, I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part.

No mistake.....three point eight.

Rachel Maddow is a radical left-wing nutjob, the same way that Ann Coulter is a right-wing radical nutjob.

If you can't tell the difference between Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter then there is no hope for you.

I read the People interview where Laura Bush was asked if she was more hurt by public opinion of her husband than he is. Her reply was telling: "Probably. But both of us have a very strong sense of who we are. In a lot of ways, that's just chatter out there."

Laura appears delusional.

On the "you people" front:

I think this one might qualify as worth reading... It did start a chain that was interesting. But after 20 minutes with google, that's all I can find.

The demoRATs are still in power making stupid decisions. 

Unemployment benefits are a good thing, and many Americans should enjoy not working!

You are not the first and you will not be the last to misuse a word, because clearly you do not know the definition of racism.  Bigotry you seem to be familair with that term.

"Your Dictionary.com" site defines racism as a belief or doctrine that asserts racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others. It is the practice of hate, discrimination, segregation, etc., that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another.

 A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed or opinion.

A pigeon is not a chicken even if you choose to call him that, I don't know whats so difficult about differentiating between the two words.

 It is the practice of hate, discrimination, segregation, etc., that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another.

and i would argue that requesting special circumstances because of Obama's race is pushing for domination or superiority of one race over others (it's at least a step in that direction).  not all racism is negative action.  it can be elevating someone because of race (i.e. affirmative action).  that is discrimination of all the other races and segeration of the race that is being elevated.  so the claim that Obama should be in the blair house because he is the first black president can be considred a racist practice.  i understand its a subjective thing and the word is misued often.  i have many examples of being called a racist just for critisizing Obama during the campaign.  i cant stand the man's ideas.... he could be asian, german, russian, whatever, I still do not like his ideas... yet i was called a racist often.  It was used wrongly there. However, I think I applied the word correctly as per my explanation above.  

and please explain how i am a bigot? (as i gather that is why you think i am familar with the word.... unless i read it wrong and then I apologize for the accusation) 

bigot:  a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't think exepcting that everyone gets treated the same is intolerance.  i think that is equality, that's the strong opinion I hold to.  it's not predijuice against any group.   special circumstances is not equality.

i am not intolerant or predijucie against any group.  eveyone in this country has the right to work hard and get ahead.  but once you apply special circumstances that makes it easier for them to accomplish those things, the word racism can be applied.  it's a practice designed to elevate one race above another.

just my opinion...

blearc

i possibly overreacted but i was just responding to what you wrote.  The tone I got from the beginning of the article was that Obama should get to stay there because him being the first black president is so significant.  it seemed like that was the only reason you were giving as to why he should be there.  sure it's and empty house, but the current president has the right do what he wants til jan 15th.  maybe he will intivite more people now that other's canceled.  it's not a diss to the Obamas.  It's standard practice.

I guess I am just a little sick of hearing how significant it is. he's black... woo hoo.  Obama will be pres.  just like every pres before him.  why is there so much focus on the color of his skin?  what about his ideas?  that it was matters. I don't care that he is black.  I care that he is too liberal for my taste. 

so i apolgize for going off the handle like that.  being on the vine, i tend to project from other conversations and i also had a rough drive into work so that had my frenzy light switched on.

Blearc -

This from a commenter on a Chicago Tribune article:

Clinton and Reagan were allowed into the Blair house way earlier than this.

Clinton moved in Dec. 7th.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977413,00.html

Reagan moved in about the same time Obama wanted to.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/textual/smof/heinze.htm

So, contrary to Profchaos' certain knowledge that PE's always move into Blair House on the 15th of January, and that's the way it is - it seems that there have been exceptions, and that some of the exceptions were relatively recent.  Too bad the current Bush doesn't have the manners and consideration of his parents.

always was too strong a word.  i took it as standard practice. and it as standard practice that it is reseved for the incoming first family from jan 15-20.  I was actually going to look up what you found regarding past presidents.  so i stand corrected.  i still contend that the tone of the article implies that the exception should be made becuase Obama is black.  again, i may be reaching too far there but it's what I read.

however, it doesn't change the fact that Bush had invited people to stay and someone is staying there.  the current president is using it as he sees fit until jan 15th which is his right.  It's not a middle finger to the Obamas.  its just a schedule conflict.

Profchaos, I did not call you a bigot, I am not into name calling, the word racist that you use so freely should be bigot or bigotry.   Racism promotes the domination politcally or economically of one race over another or it asserts that a race is superior to others in intelligence or other characters.

To say that affirmative action is a practice of racism is absurd, so we will have to agree to disagree.  Allowing the Obama family the use of the Blair house so that his children can make a smooth transition into their schools would not be racist, it would have perhaps been gracious and considerate. 

The Bush's seem to live by the motto of my old college intramural team:

"Overbearing in Victory: Surly in Defeat"

Prof: I agree with you that the whole "slaves built the White House" is out of place in this article.  IMHO it is in no way related to anything else in the article, just a random thought thrown in.

To say that affirmative action is a practice of racism is absurd

racism as a belief or doctrine that asserts racial differences in character, intelligence,

What is affirmative action if not a practice (goverment mandated at that) of elevating people based on race.  It discriminates against white people because if you have two people with the same qualificaitons, and one it white and one is black, affirmative action tells you to hire the black one.  why is the black person's intelligence or charchter more suited to a job just becuase they are black?  we will just have to disagree but affirmative action is a very racist program.  affirmative action creates special circumstances based on race.  its not equality.

sorry blearc for going off topic there, but i had to defend the claim that affirmative action is a racist practice

Clinton stayed in the same hotel that Obama is in. He had a meeting in Blair House per your link.

THE TRANSITION: The Accommodations; Blair House It Isn't, but It Isn't Inexpensive, Either

By MARTIN TOLCHIN,
Published: November 18, 1992

In spurning the luxury of a government mansion for a luxury hotel, President-elect Bill Clinton may be making a point, but he won't save the taxpayers any money.

On January 14, the president-elect flew to Washington , where he and Nancy Reagan stayed at the Blair House, across the street from the White House, during the week before the inaguration.  ~ Page 76, President Reagan, The Role of a Lifetime, author Lou Cannon.

He had meetings there. There was a crisis then also. In Iran. Hostages. Facts are really not all that scary. Unless they are twisted to make a falsehood appear like a truth.

Phoenixrising:  You have made that distinction clear on many newsvine articles.  I would think most every one would be familiar with the "difference" in the two words by now. 

Slaves did not build the White House.

Not true.  Provide link.

Blearc's right, it was the second link he included in the article.  The one labelled "black slaves".  But hey, why make you scroll all the way back up to read something you could have clicked on originally?  Here you go, this is the link: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/06/subs/06_a04.html  It's a site run by the White House Historical Association, originally suggested by the National Park Service and founded in 1961 through the efforts of Jacqueline Kennedy.

"Carpenter's Roll for the President's House." Wage rolls for May 1795 list five slaves Tom, Peter, Ben, Harry and Daniel, three of whom were slaves owned by White House architect James Hoban. NARA


Construction on the President’s House began in 1792 in Washington, D.C., a new capital situated in sparsely settled region far from a major population center. The decision to place the capital on land ceded by two slave states–Virginia and Maryland–ultimately influenced the acquisition of laborers to construct its public buildings. The D.C. commissioners, charged by Congress with building the new city under the direction of the president, initially planned to import workers from Europe to meet their labor needs. However, response to recruitment was dismal and soon they turned to African Americans – slave and free – to provide the bulk of labor that built the White House, the United States Capitol, and other early government buildings.

A major concern in the construction of the new public buildings in this remote location was the acquisition of building materials, such as stone, lumber, bricks, hardware, and nails. Black quarrymen, sawyers, brickmakers, and carpenters fashioned raw materials into the products used to erect the White House. Master stonemason, Collen Williamson, trained slaves on the spot at the government’s quarry at Aquia, Virginia. There slaves quarried and cut the rough stone that was later dressed and laid by Scottish stonecutters to erect the walls of the President’s House. Sawyers listed on government payrolls, such as "Jerry", "Jess", "Charles", "Len", "Dick", "Bill" and "Jim" undoubtedly were slaves leased from their masters. Free and slave blacks burnt bricks used to line the stone walls in temporary ricks on the President’s House grounds. Often working seven days a week during the high construction summer months alongside white workers and artisans, black laborers proved vital to the work force that created both the White House and U.S. Capitol.

Read more: William Seale, The President’s House, White House Historical Association, 1986; Robert J. Kapsch, "Building Liberty’s Capital," American Visions, February/March 1995, 8-10.


Looks like everybody was paid.  Five slaves.  Named Tom, Peter, Ben, Harry, and Daniel.

It's not special treatment see post #5.5

It is indeed, 'special treatment'.  You cite two examples where the current administrations agreed to allow said 'special treatment'.  That doesn't eliminate the fact that the day a PE traditionally takes over the Blair House is January 15th.  It also doesn't eliminate the fact that it's the current administration's decision to make.  Nor does it eliminate the fact that the Obama's have long since said "OK...No problem".

You are obviously only trying to lay a "shame on you" on the Bush's, given your dislike for them.  It's pretty transparent, too.

I predict that liberals are going to be absolutely lost when Bush is out and Obama takes office.  Who are they going to diss then? 

You won, Liberals.  Get over the obsession with Bush and start educated yourselves on Obama's planned policies.  You'll find out you have way more to be upset about than the PE's living arrangements.

Oh Pat, I admire your optimism.  however, bush bashing will go on for a VERY long time.  I am sure he will even come up in the 2012 election as an explanation to any failure of Obama.

Well Said!

You won, Liberals.  Get over the obsession with Bush

I'll 'get over' Bush when the horrible legacy he is leaving us is no longer felt. Why don't you conservatives get over your obsession with blaming Obama before he is sworn in?

You Bush supporters sure are angry when he is questioned, aren't you?

The pathetic part is you can't even leave one of the most gracious souls to inhabit the Whitehouse in a long while out of it. Ask Michelle Obama if she feels that she's been given the finger by Laura, I suspect you'll get a different answer.

You people have been so mired in vulgarity for so long you no longer have the capacity to recognize it for what it is.

This article was intended to show another Bush family lie and I backed my claim up with facts. 

Really?  What lie? What facts?  Maybe the Bushes are planners, like me.  I usually will hold a date even if arrangements and particulars are not set in stone.  Show me Laura's blank calander pages from said dates and then you have facts, otherwise you are just tossing out thoughts and beliefs, not proof.

Here's a fact, as of right now someone is scheduled to stay in the Blair House, end of story.

You Bush supporters sure are angry when he is questioned, aren't you?

No more angry than Obama supporters get when Obama is criticized.  I don't blame Obama for anything yet because he is not sworn in.  However, I have many issues with many of his appointments.

Pat, I've seen no proof to substantiate the claim that the 15th is tradition, only the statement of Laura Bush

Then you haven't looked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_House

Instead, the Obama family moved into the nearby Hay–Adams Hotel, until January 15 when they will move to Blair House as is the custom for all incoming presidents. January 15th to the 20th is always reserved for the incoming First Family.

You people have been so mired in vulgarity for so long you no longer have the capacity to recognize it for what it is

I think it's the younger crowd that voted for Obama that has issues with this.  The average 20 year old was 12 when Bush took office.  They grew up dissing and hating Bush.  It's all they've known.  They will be seriously lost when he leaves office.

profchaos - check out cia.gov/library - it shows where Reagan moved into Blair house in mid-November

1 or 2 examples are expections... not the standard practice. 

Meanwhile, the NYT quoted a State Department official, as saying that he didn't know of any foreign dignitaries staying at the Blair House in early January.

And?  Your proof is only proof of what one person said they did not know.  Did he mean no one was staying or did he mean he didn't know if anyone was staying (as in no one was confirmed)?  Your proof can be read however you want it to read and is therefore undefinitive and conjecture.

of course the only exceptions should be made for republicans & then you can sit there & b@tch at about how much the Hotel costs - make up your mind - it would have been cheaper for the country if he had been allowed to move into Blair house - less security - less messing up traffic flow - but why should Bush care about saving us money - he didn't care for eight years why should he care now

clinton was in there early.  exceptions have been made on both sides, though i don't think they should be.  i am not @!$%#ing about how much the hotel costs.  i could care less.  i made up my mind.  no expections for anyone.  he can deal like all the other presidents who didn't have exceptions made for them. 

Meanwhile, the NYT quoted a State Department official, as saying that he didn't know of any foreign dignitaries staying at the Blair House in early January.

Well there is an unbiased news source! An unnamed source from the Times is hardly believable.

Howard bumps Obama from bed

The Australian  | January 07, 2009

http://www.congoo.com/news/2009January7/Room-Blair-House-Obamas-Yep

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/06/blair-house-mystery-guest_n_155778.html

More than one source says it is officially Howard on the 12th. There are more.

Yes, that Laura Bush is a nasty piece of work alright, see here. And here

I do not rejoice in the notion that Bush supporters will be excessively happy when anarchy and America fails under the watch of Obama.  Obama is unfit to lead this country, and his cabinet appointments prove that beyond reason.  Bush doesn't want him around because he will be a failure.

What am I missing here?  Blair House is available exactly as it has been in the past: On January 15.  What's the problem?  Why spew BS at the Bush's now?  Even if you don't like them, there is exactly zero reason to keep kicking them on their way out.

My thoughts exactly.  IMO, an ungraceful winner is far worse than a sore loser.

Blearc: Your buddy could only find 2 presidents that moved in earlier, that should be proof enough.  How about you prove that it is not traditional?

wikipedia is not the best source.  however,  it does state on their that the blair house is traditionally reserved for the incoming first family from jan 15 - 20.

There is no reason to worry about anything since the world will end in a few years.  Get on some kinda of government payroll and enjoy your life until the end!

Yup.

Not even in a metaphorical sense is it true.

The picture of Laura Bush included in this seed is pretty funny, though. It sure looks like the alternative gesture.

It appears to be the "biceps flex" gesture.(who knows what the context was on the talk show) Not sure what that has to do with the middle finger.

Where I come from, when you place one fist in the other elbow and rapidly closet that elbow, it has the same meaning as the middle finger gesture.

Also, one could imagine that she poised to launch that middle finger at any moment, or that it was airbrushed away.

I would be willing to bet a paycheck that isn't what she's doing. She is a lady, after all.

She is a lady, after all

Hardly.

I bet you think Barbara "They are better off for Katrina having happened" Bush is a lady, too, right?

Waynster,

I just said it was a great choice of art work to accompany the article, not that she is really giving the finger or about to give the finger.

I'll bet she's given George the finger once or twice though. Probably after he resumed drinking, to be sure.

I'm pretty sure she's thrown a few things at him, he moves like a married man.

::chuckle:: Oh, no doubt, (especially after that his remark about her cooking)  but she does have a well developed sense of decorum, which would preclude your thesis in my view.

there is bigotry in this thread?  i know there are racial discussions... but i see no evidence of bigotry.

~leans over to whisper~ Profchaos, we're all "bigots" and "racists" and "nutjobs" whenever we don't kowtow to The One and his awesomeness, or the grand and glorious ideas and suggestions of the Followers. ~hands you the memo you missed~ We're supposed to be upset and ashamed that the Obamas have to stay in a hotel. After all, we're just meanies.

Thanks for illustrating the point! LOL

that was an example of bigotry?  really?

reagan was in mid-November

You are part right. Reagan moved in about the same time as Obama wanted.

Clinton moved in Dec 7.

according to cia.gov/library Reagan moved in in Mid-November

Please provide a link.

I was going by the official Presidential Document Archives

According to Time Carter was In By Dec 6

it is cia.gov - it was in the library

IndependentVoter:

You should note that the Presidential Document Archives has a document entitled "Reagan Remarks, Q&A - Return to Blair House 01/01/1981" which would seem to imply he moved in at some point prior to January 1st, and was just returning to Blair House after the holidays.

nica1829:

I don't see quite where it says "mid-november" in the cia.gov library.  It does seem to say that Reagan moved in sometime between November 20th and December 11th, though:

The session held the following day, 20 November, also took place in the crowded Jackson Place townhouse. It was to have been a review of the US-Soviet strategic force balance, the NATO-Warsaw Pact conventional force balance, the Soviet threat to Poland, and developments in Central America. In fact, no systematic briefing occurred at all. Instead, there was a general and relatively brief discussion of the Soviet threat to Poland and the situation in Central America.

Reagan's expressed interests during the session on 20 November included the relationship between the Soviets' involvement in Eastern Europe and their ability to pursue their interests in other parts of the world. He was well informed on Mexico's role in Central America, Cuba, and the region, attributing this to his California background. Concerning both Central America and Eastern Europe, the President-elect's comments often addressed the policy aspects of what the United States was doing and should do. Obliged to demur on the policy questions, the CIA briefers came away concerned about whether they had been very helpful.

By the time of the briefing on 11 December, the Reagan team had relocated its operation to Blair House, which provided a much better setting for an organized presentation.

[Chapter 6: Reagan and Bush - A Study in Contrasts — Central Intelligence Agency]

Thanks

Reagan is the best president this country has ever had.

I could care less about the national debt.  The demoRATs stopped America's manufacturing.

TheJonesGirl - are they not the poster children of the 'ugly americans'

They are--self centered, arrogant, playing their silly little games.  The country will be lucky to be rid of them.

President bashing is fun! Everybody join in and go to the athletic store and get a wooden bat.

Thank God or whoever else is out there!

I agree.  Let the Bushes be and soon they will be gone.  The concentration should be upon the positive and the exciting path the nation is now on. 

Somehow, I doubt that your side would have been quiet about this.

Nonsense. Why does anyone care? Really? Half of the world is at war and we worry about this?

i worry about it because it is just another loss of money that could have been saved -

We were at war when Repubs were so worried about Wright and Ayers, too.

What in world does that have to do with this thread? Even remotely.

Just commenting on your "half the world is at war and we are worried about" line, IV.  Of course, your side is never wrong, is it?  When  your side criticizes, it is just dandy and deserved.

LOL.

 tried, I really did try to be non partisan and let sleeping dogs lie.

Really? This is your version of non-partisanship? Lewis Carroll's got nothing on you.

Waynester: Of course non-partisan:

This article is also a counter punch to all the claims against Obama

from Blearc #6.5

For all those saying this is a "non-issue" would you have felt the same way if it had been Clinton who refused Bush's request to move in early because of the Bush girls' school schedule, even if there was no one scheduled to be there?

I wouldn't have given a damn, just like I don't give a damn now. But by all means, let's bow down and give the Obamas whatever they want because they're "historical" and all that. Waaaaaa about the security details and the staying in the hotel. If the Clintons denied the Bushes and their girls, it would've still been a non-issue in many books. But because The One has seemingly - according to Follower standards - been snubbed, it's not somehow a national issue. The security details seem to have no issu, or I'm quite sure that the Secret Service would've approached the First Lady and explained that they needed to move in early. There's a difference between "want" and "need" - something lefties seem to forget on a regular basis, because everything is a "need" to them.

How many of you cried "foul" while the Clintons allegedly defaced public property in the White House on their way out (along with their staffers, who were probably most of the ones doing the damage and not the Clintons themselves - although I have my doubts about Shrillary)? Let's see a show of hands......

...........

............

Thought so.

But by all means, let's bow down and give the Obamas whatever they want because they're "historical" and all that. Waaaaaa about the security details and the staying in the hotel.

Actually, it was the Righties going "waaaah!" about security details and the fact that the Secret Service has to pay for extra rooms in the hotel and securing the street.  But funny, those same righties are here suddenly ok with the expense as they rush to defend their "One" Bush.  Because in their eyes, Bush is a victim and never ever to blame for a single thing.

How many of you cried "foul" while the Clintons allegedly defaced public property in the White House on their way out (along with their staffers, who were probably most of the ones doing the damage and not the Clintons themselves - although I have my doubts about Shrillary)

That was debunked long long ago.  Not that facts have ever stopped a right-winger from a rant.

BTW, calling Hillary names like that is just childish.  Again, though, expected from a rightie.

Have you by any chance read the comments made about the George and Laura on this same thread? What would that make the people that made those comments? Is it what you "would expect from a leftie" as well?

Yep, to me it's a non-issue.  President Obama has a very large job ahead of him that will require 200% of his attention.  Yes, it was ignorant on the Bush's part, but you notice, our President doesn't sweat the small things.  Just look how he carried himself through the election.  Took the punches, and jabbed back when necessary.  He's such a class act man.

Momma, I think it is because Obama is such a class act that this action by the Bushes comes off so poorly.

Agreed

Well said.

You're right, denying the Obama's access to the Blair House when it was empty was divisive and mean spirited.  And we do need to stop this hateful nonsense.  That is why this article is calling her on it, and rightfully so.

Evidence says was not going to be empty. Get over it.

When the facts on the ground contradict what is in your head, the facts must be wrong.

Evidence says it was empty for the time period Obama requested, IV.

What on earth makes people so rabidly defend a detestable action like this of Bush's?  Is it fear of him being criticized for anything?

I agree also.  Five years from now are people here still going to be trying to sling mud at the Bush family? What good does that do?

Evidence says it was empty for the time period Obama requested, IV.

Post it.

Mine is Here

Answer the question

You really believe that a state visit was planned after Obama's request?

IV: You've been given the proof:

"I have a feeling" case closed! ;-)

Blearc: Are you going to now state that Obama and all his supporters would have been more than happy to share the Blair House with the President's guests?

I have a feeling that is a bunch of bull!

How divisive and mean spirited can one be?

Ask the Bush's definition of "Power"

In addition to Mr. Howard’s overnight stay, there are several other receptions planned at Blair House over the next week, including a reception Wednesday honoring members of the administration’s Global Partnership Initiative.

From post #21.

But you avoided my question, didn't you?

Evidence says was not going to be empty. Get over it.

Evidence says it was going to be empty.  One foreign dignitary does not fill up 119 rooms.  Neither does "Receptions" being held at the house.  The fact of the matter is that there is not even a single overnight stay, other than Howard's, scheduled between now and January 15th.

When the facts on the ground contradict what is in your head, the facts must be wrong.

No, when the facts reported by the Bushes ("no room at the inn") are contradicted by the facts on the ground, the Bushes must be lying. As, in fact, we see they are in the words of Laura Bush's own spokesperson, Sally McDonough:

There are other scheduled events at Blair House, but no other planned overnight visits between now and Jan. 15, when the Obama family is scheduled to move in, McDonough said.

[Blair House Mystery Solved: It's John Howard | 44 | washingtonpost.com]

A reception in which no guests are planning to stay overnight is not going to take up a 119 room residence. Particularly when 14 of those rooms are bedrooms which the Obamas could clearly have used, and which are not being utilized by "parties" with no overnight guests. By forcing the Obamas to stay elsewhere, Bush is costing taxpayers a great deal of money. In fact, Bill Clinton was criticized for staying at the Hay-Adams himself once as president-elect, for a much briefer period of time, rather than staying at the Blair House as early as November 1992, due to the amount of extra money it would cost taxpayers:

In spurning the luxury of a government mansion for a luxury hotel, President-elect Bill Clinton may be making a point, but he won't save the taxpayers any money.

In fact, his decision to stay at the Hay-Adams Hotel instead of Blair House will cost more because of the additional Secret Service protection needed, said State Department officials who operate the Government mansion, which usually houses visiting heads of state.

But Mr. Clinton will save taxpayers' money by taking a chartered jet from Little Rock, Ark., on Wednesday instead of the military aircraft offered by President Bush.

Blair House, a short walk across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, has full security, according to the State Department's Office of Protocol, which operates the residence. But hotels must be made secure, it said. Agents Upstairs and Down

Hence, teams of Secret Service agents will be on duty round the clock in rooms above and below the hotel's Presidential suite, as well as on both sides, State Department officials said. Agents will also set up a command post on the Clintons' floor for the two-day visit and be on duty in the corridors, meeting rooms and lobby. The service would not say how many agents were needed or the cost entailed.

A two- to three-day stay at Blair House for up to 19 people costs somewhere between $5,000 and $15,000, said Clyde Nora, the State Department's Assistant Chief of Protocol for Administration. The estimate, he said, includes meals, hairdressers, dry cleaning -- all the amenities.

"I doubt you can do it cheaper anyplace in the world," Mr. Nora said.

Blair House has 14 bedrooms that include nine singles, three twins and two suites. It can accommodate 19 people. Staff salaries are paid whether or not the residence is occupied.

[THE TRANSITION: The Accommodations; Blair House It Isn't, but It Isn't Inexpensive, Either - New York Times]

I will go with this.

IV:

Yes, the Global Partnership Initiative reception as well as several other parties are mentioned in the link I provided quoting Sally McDonough.  Yet, McDonough is quite clear: there are no overnight guests staying as part of that reception, or any of the other parties.  Howard is the only overnight guest between now and the 15th.  That is fourteen bedrooms, capable of accommodating 19 people total, which are not being utilized save by Howard in the time period in question.  This is not just "a feeling", those are the facts as admitted by Laura Bush's own spokesperson, Sally McDonough.

Nonsense

If you have proof to the contrary, show it, IV.  Otherwise, why should we believe you?

Declare war on President Bush for eight years then call for a truce, Boinkenstacker!

Nonsense

Nonsense in what respect?  That there are no overnight visits other than Howard?  Again, we know this from McDonough herself:  "There are other scheduled events at Blair House, but no other planned overnight visits between now and Jan. 15, when the Obama family is scheduled to move in, McDonough said."  That there are 14 bedrooms in Blair House capable of holding 19 people?  We know that from the 1992 article on Clinton staying at the Hay-Adams rather than at Blair House.  That a reception with no overnight guests will not be using those 14 bedrooms?  We know that from simple logic.

But I suppose when the facts on the ground contradict what is in your head, the facts must be wrong, huh?

Go to factcheck.org  That's right, it is wrong most of the time.

Go to it for what article?  It's a large site. What portion of it are you trying to reference that is relevant to this discussion?

Besides making taxpayers provide partial funds for the Obama hotel stay, Mrs. Bush JUST NOW purchased new china for the White House (after 8 years!) when they have less than 2 weeks left. Outside money or not, what does that say about misuse of power? Guess she thinks she needs to "leave a legacy" too. ($575,000.oo)

Actually, Obama got a resounding electoral college victory and the popular vote was the widest gap since Clinton's victory in 1996.

And you talk of childishness...it's childish, what the Bushes did with Blair House.  But not shocking considering the finger Bush has given to the world.

what the Bushes did with Blair House

When the facts on the ground contradict what is in your head, the facts must be wrong.

You really believe that a state visit was planned after Obama's request?

the popular vote was the widest gap since Clinton's victory in 1996.

The popular vote is as relevant as the amount of rainfull in an election year and besides Clinton never got a majority anyway.

Jonesgirl... remember jsut 8 years ago when the left was so preoccuppied with the popular vote??  oh how times have changed

electoral landlisde sure. but almost half the people in the country did not vote for him.  and yeah the biggest spread since clinton... who hoo.  4 % is not a large number.

4% is huge, given how close 2000 and 2004 were....

You really believe that a state visit was planned after Obama's request?

Yes.  After all, we are discussing Bush, a man who made intelligence match his preconceptions so he could have his Iraq war.  Also, given Bush's "my way or the highway" style, I think it perfectly in line with his attitude and actions to enjoy keeping a public resource like the Blair House away from Obama.

4% is 4%  recently close elections or not. and the country is quite old so the past 8 years is hardly a measure to inflate a number like 4%

According to those who study elections, 4% is huge these days.

But since you guys said above that you don't care about the popular vote, let's focus on the EC victory which was resounding.

JonesGirl

You really believe that a state visit was planned after Obama's request?

Yes.

If you really believe that..you and Bush have a lot in common.

Got more than an ad-hom slam on me, IV?

We are talking about a man who started a war for no reason.  Denying the new president a place to stay fits well with Bush's character.

I don't believe that Mr. Howard's visit is a State Visit for two reasons.  First - he's no longer Prime Minister - just a simple civilian.  Second - he was never a Head of State.  As the Prime Minister of Australia he was the head of government; the Queen is the head of state (or, perhaps, her representative, the Governor-General), and I don't believe either of the shes will be there.

So - the usual amount of planning, pomp and circumstance would not bee needed.

Got more than an ad-hom slam on me, IV?

Have someone read Post #21 to you.

If you really believe State visits are planned that quickly then all I can say is WOW....

Moon made of green cheese? There really is a Santa Claus?

It's not a state visit.

But if you believe what Bush says....WOW!  You must believe in the Tooth Fairy, too.

McCain won thirty states.  Obama won twenty states.  Period.

Yeah, too bad the 20 states Obama won are far more populated than those McCain won. Last time I checked, we were still using the (admittedly LAME) electoral college system, yes? I think some are calling Obama's win a landslide. I knew 3 months before the election he would win, where were you?

Brian, how many Dem states did McCain pick up again?

How many Repub states did Obama win?

Obamacrimes.com and Philip Berg hopefully will be willing to win for All Americans.

IV: Now they are going to ask you to PROVE that these things are planned months in advance!  I didn't know you wrote the article, LOL!

The fact that these articles are listed as EVENT rather than OPINION cracks me up!

what a mean spirited and presumptive article...

And without a shred of evidence..None.

Except... I have a feeling

LOL

What does that have to do with this thread?

 What does that have to do with this thread?

Nothing, except the usual fallacious arguments and grasping at straws to be oh-so-superior. "Uhhh...what's it have to do with the thread? Bush is a liar!! You don't understand!!!" ~insert whining tone of voice~

C'mon....can't you feel the superiority drowning us poor ole "bigoted racist nutjobs"? I'm waiting for'em to come up with better names. They've used up "facist" and "Nazi" long ago. ~rme~

/sarc

Fourteen United Resolutions were broken by Saddam Hussein.  The news media forced Bush's and America's hand.  Did you forget and have dementia?

Brian: Do you want to start counting how many United Nations Resolutions have been violated by Israel?  Hint: it's more than 14. 

Israel has not broken any United Nations resolutions because no action has been contemplated by them against Israel.

Who gives a crap what date Obama moves into Blair house.

The whine bags on this thread.

as i have stated the cost of securing the hotel is much more than securing Blair house - that is my point - we are all told we have to work together - tighten our belts - live within our means & then when some money can be saved what happens? - it isn't - great - its not whining - it is trying to hold people like Bush to the standards they want us to follow - conserve - live within your means - with the debt this country has it cannot afford the extra expense of securing a hotel when a more secure location was available - and as for the guy from australia - tough - the PE is more important to us

nica: Here's a thought, Why doesn't Obama pay for his hotel himself, like everyone else?  He is not the President yet, why should we have to worry about putting ANY President Elect up until they take office?

Yes, FAR FAR away.

#23  two thumbs up

crystal - it is not the hotel that we are paying for - he is paying for that through his campaign fund - but as with former presidents & their spouses we provide SECURITY for the PE - what part could you not understand?  SECURITY that had to be put into place at an unsecure location when there was a secure location available - save money - what a concept the Bush administration does not get -

I'm sure if Bush could avoid giving Obama security, he would have done so. 

we are all told we have to work together - tighten our belts - live within our means & then when some money can be saved

Cool have the Inauguration in the basement of the WH with just a few friends and witnesses. Then up to Oval to get to work..no balls..no parties....economic times that we are in you know....

nica: okay so you are telling me there would be no need for security at the Blair House, gotcha....don't think I buy that though! 

Furthermore, paying for it out of contributions isn't the same as paying for it himself, why can't he use contributions to pay for the security that is now only necessary because he is at a hotel instead of Blair?

IV: Now a party is okay to spend money on!! LOL! Seriously, I don't begrudge him his ball if the figures line up with the average of other presidents.

Crystal, Blair House already has security.  Obama is paying for the security to be with him where it isn't usually.

Security is given to all presidents-elect, Obama would have it if he were in Chicago or DC.  Unless you are suggesting he not be provided security?

IV - read an article i wrote last week - i have mentioned the need for balls & such - i don't see the need in these economic times - so don't pull that crap on me

Crystal - as TheJonesGirl told you all PE are provided with security just as former presidents & their spouses - check to see how long we paid for security on Lady Bird Johnson & about the fits the government threw when Carter wanted to discontinue his security after (i forget) how many years

I'm sure if Bush could avoid giving Obama security, he would have done so.

Cite your evidence..oh never mind you never have any other ridiculous statements. You and Bush do have a lot in common.

nica and JonesGirl: You make my point precisely....we would be paying for security regardless! 

I would think that these would be salary type jobs, not part time, or am I wrong?  Are we leaving security up to mall type security officers....I doubt it.

Crystal, we are paying for additional security with Obama in the hotel opposed to Blair House, since the unlike Blair House, the hotel isn't on a normally secured street nor is it a normally secured location, like Blair House.

TheJonesGirl - give it up - she cannot comprehend how a secure location needs less Secret Service security than an NON-secure location

I comprehend just fine.  Maybe you do not comprehend my point. 

If the Secret Service are hourly employees, I'll concede.  I have a feeling they are salary and would be being paid anyways.

Since you are the ones that a griping about money....I'll wait to see how much you gripe over how much spent on the balls, parties, and such....but don't worry I won't hold my breath

but more Secret Service needs to be utilized - have you heard how extra police force had to be called in DC to cover streets around the hotel - traffic diverted - also extra people - MORE people means MORE money

crystal:

The Secret Service have to rent rooms in the hotel as well, in addition to costs associated with their individual pay.  They need to rent rooms above, below, and around the Presidential suite in the hotel, as well as rooms to set up a command base.  This comment I posted earlier contains a description of the security measures required, from a 1992 article criticizing Bill Clinton as president-elect for staying at the same hotel as Obama for one weekend in November rather than utlizing Blair House.  The Obamas will be staying there much longer.  It is well established that it costs much more to secure this hotel than it does to utilize the already-secure Blair House.

SECURITY that had to be put into place at an unsecure location when there was a secure location available - save money - what a concept the Bush administration does not get -

So, let me get this right. The Hawaiian vacation was a "secure location"? Why did my tax dollars go to pay for someone's vacation - even partially - because they chose an unsecure location where he needed 24/7 security? Given that the Hay-Adams isn't exactly like staying at the local Motel 6, I sincerely doubt that security there is an issue, or the Secret Service detail would definitely be moving the incoming First Family to a location THEY felt was secure.

Moot point - just left-wing whining 'cause The One isn't getting what he wants.

Oh, you doubt, Gemini?  Weren't your Rightie buddies here ridiculing people for posting their feelings on a matter and not being factual?

Obama has a secret service detail.  But the bottom line is that by staying in the hotel instead of Blair House, the secret service has to rent the rooms above, below and to the sides of the family, as well as secure an area of DC that isn't normally as secure as the area around the White House.  That costs money in ADDITION to the normal secret service detail the Obamas have.

It's not that tough a concept unless one is being intentionally obtuse.

Sure, it's secure at the Hay-Adams, but requires additional work and therefore money to work.

And it's just amusing that the same righties who were all over Danny's seed about the costs for the extra security required by Obama at the Hay-Adams hotel are here suddenly defending Bush and seeming to forget their rants about the cost that Bush created by denying the Obamas the use of Blair House.  It's like most of you think that your comments of a day or so can't be seen anymore, as if you'll change your tunes on a dime to defend Bush at all costs.

As for paying for vacations, I wonder if you were complaining of all of Bush's trips to the Ranch.  I mean, since Bush spent more time on vacation than any president in history and all.

So, let me get this right. The Hawaiian vacation was a "secure location"?

No, it was not.  It was a vacation.

Why did my tax dollars go to pay for someone's vacation - even partially - because they chose an unsecure location where he needed 24/7 security?

Because security is provided to presidents-elect, presidents, ex-presidents, and their families 24-7, whether they are on duty or on vacation.  Obama and his wife will have this protection for the rest of their lives.

Given that the Hay-Adams isn't exactly like staying at the local Motel 6, I sincerely doubt that security there is an issue, or the Secret Service detail would definitely be moving the incoming First Family to a location THEY felt was secure.

Again, please read the 1992 article I linked to in my earlier comment in which the State Department was specifically outlining the problems with securing the Hay-Adams hotel for a president-elect's stay, and the costs associated with doing so.  And Clinton's stay was just two days, Obama's will be much longer.

Moot point - just left-wing whining 'cause The One isn't getting what he wants.

No, we're not whining.  We're pointing out the lack of class displayed by this administration in denying the Obamas the use of Blair House despite the fact that it has 14 bedrooms capable of accomodating 19 people, and only 1 person is going to be using any of those bedrooms for an overnight stay between now and the 15th.  This was a very intentional snub of the Obamas, and the reasons given have been little more than pretenses at justification.  The Bush family, more than anyone, should know that it is not the case that all incoming presidents move into Blair House on January 15th.  Clinton moved into Blair House at the end of the elder Bush's presidency on December 8th, 1992.

I'll bet God is really glad to hear he has not been elected President!!!  No one in their right mind would want that job, if for no other reason, just such discussions as this one.  Very childish and very silly.

TL:  According to tradition, from, what I understand and have read,  they can start staying there January 15th.  The Obama's wanted it earlier.

What it all boils down to is one last thing to gripe about the Bushes over, nothing more.

I am afraid there will be a lot of griping about the Bush administration for a long time to come as this country will continue to suffer from President Bush's decisions, or lack thereof.