Not Everyone Is Catching the Frenzied Obama Inauguration Fever

From Politico:

With Barack Obama's approval ratings in the 70s and his visage plastered on every shop window and Metro card in Washington, it's hard to remember that 58 million Americans voted for the other guy.

Even President Bush — who presumably counts himself among that group — said last week that Obama's inauguration is "a moment of hope and pride."

That's not exactly how Michelle Malkin describes it.

"Jan. 20 has turned into a schlock inauguration, (where) every last moocher has come to cash in on Obama," says the conservative blogger and pundit. "There are some of us who want to bang our heads against the wall."

While most Republicans now in office are saying all the right things about Tuesday's proceedings — roll tape on "peaceful transfer of power" and "historic moment for the country" sound bites — some conservatives can't quite get themselves in the "We Are One" mood.

Not even for a day.

On his radio show last week, Rush Limbaugh railed against "people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds. We have to give him a chance.'"

"Why?" Limbaugh demanded. "They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."

In the wake of the disputed 2000 election, only 47 percent of the public predicted that Bush would be an "above average" or "outstanding" president. In a new Associated Press-GfK poll, 65 percent of the public attaches those words to Obama.

Asked about Obama's inauguration last week, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay hammered on the cost.

If Obama were "serious" about changing Washington, DeLay said, "He would announce to the world: 'We are in crisis, we are at war, people are losing jobs; we are not going to have this party. Instead, I'm going to get sworn in at the White House. I'm going to have a nice little chicken dinner, and we'll save the $125 million.'"

DeLay said he understands why Republicans in Congress aren't complaining about this publicly: "Those in elected office are looking at Obama's popularity numbers and don't want to be perceived as anti-American by being anti-Obama."

He didn't name names, but the normally outspoken Rep. Michele Bachmann might fit the bill.

Just before the election, the Minnesota Republican told Chris Matthews that she thought Obama might have "anti-American views."

Last week, she told The Hill: "I look forward to working with him and I would expect to be as friendly as I would be to [any president]."

In March, Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King predicted that an Obama victory would have "the al Qaeda and the radical Islamists and their supporters ... dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11th."

Last week, King was still grumbling about Obama's middle name — Hussein — but he told Politico that he's "very respectful and appreciative of the historic moment" and counts it "among life's privileges" that he'll have a seat in Congress when Obama puts his hand on the Bible.

Malkin conceded that it's appropriate to show some deference to the occasion, but she complained that Republican lawmakers aren't standing their ground.

"Especially in the Beltway," she said, "they are more wrapped up in who got invited to what dinner and who didn't. And my criticism of the GOP establishment, as they've rolled on every [Obama Cabinet] nomination, is they are completely out of touch with how fly-over America feels about this spectacle."

Or, as Bob Anderson put it: "Pffffffffffffffffft."

Anderson, a retired chief master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, is the founder of the conservative grass-roots organization "What are we fighting for?"

Asked to elaborate on his onomatopoeia, Anderson said that "Obama-mania" is leading the country into bad times.

"The only positive thing I can see is hopefully it will be bad enough quick enough that the people will stop drinking the Kool-Aid and see what we're about to lose," he said. "I think we have a very short launch window."

RedState's Erick Erickson is blasting off.

"I think we're going to be treated to.hagiography for weeks if not months," Erickson complained. "The first time Obama uses the bathroom, Newsweek will do a five-page spread."

Tom Hoefling, the political director for Alan Keyes' group America's Revival, has had it with all the talk about the "historic" nature of Obama's inauguration.

"What's historic about it?" he asked. "So it's historical because of his skin tone? Isn't that a racist idea in the first place? ... I could care less what color his skin tone is. What matters is his philosophy -- his political philosophy and his ideology."

Anderson suggested that squeamishness about race is silencing the dissent.

"We're so focused with political correctness people are uncomfortable in saying your baby is ugly and stuff is broken," he said. "While we're sitting around the campfire and trying to sing Kumbaya, our country is slipping away from us."

Anderson won't be watching the inauguration. DeLay will be out in California to rally conservatives. And Richard Viguerie, the king of right-wing direct mail, said Tuesday will be "just another day at the office."

"Yeah, sure, we can be happy that we've taken another step in the racial progress, but I just am not about race, quite frankly," Viguerie said.

He doesn't necessarily begrudge those who will celebrate this week, so long as they keep it short. "You can take a sip of Kool-Aid. It's OK to smell it, stick your finger in it. But on Jan. 21, let's get back to business."



Note from the gop4liberty author:
Thank god there are still some sane people out there!

Bailed-Out Citibank Top Donor To Obama Inauguration

Employees of Citibank, which received $45 billion in rescue funds in the federal bailout, have contributed the most to Barack Obama’s inauguration fund — at least $113,000 as of Wednesday.

And the bank is lobbying behind the scenes for more money from the second $350 billion installment of federal bailout funds, according to The New York Times.

Among the contributions from Citibank executives is $50,000 from Ray McGuire, the bank’s co-head of global investment banking, and $50,000 from Louis Susman, the recently retired vice chairman of Citigroup, the Huffington Post reports.

Susman also bundled $300,000 in donations for the inaugural committee.

Nearly 80 percent of the $35 million raised by Obama’s inaugural committee has come from just 211 bundlers, according to Public Citizen.


You know when the HuffPo is criticizing the Obamanaut it has to be bad:
"In recent weeks, Obama has vowed changes to the much-criticized $700 billion bailout program, demanding that the second installment should focus on helping families at risk of losing their homes and small businesses, and echoing Democratic criticisms of banks giving lavish bonuses to their senior executives.

Yet, as the New York Times recently reported, many of the banks, including Citigroup, need more bailout money and have been fiercely lobbying behind the scenes for a major piece of the $350 billion second installment.

Citigroup senior counselor and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was close to Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. But he recently resigned from the firm after months of criticism of his performance and his admitted failure to foresee the credit crisis.

In addition, Citigroup employees were Obama's 7th-biggest contributor, giving $586,866 to the candidate during the 2008 election cycle.

Other bailed-out banks, which have contributed to the inauguration fund, include Goldman Sachs ($44,500), JPMorgan Chase ($30,600), and Wells Fargo ($2,450).

Goldman Sachs employees were Obama's second-biggest contributor, giving $884,907 to the candidate. JP Morgan Chase employees were Obama's sixth-biggest contributor ($600,210). Morgan Stanley employees contributed $425,502 to the candidate."

Atheist Group Files Suit Against Prayer at 2009 Presidential Inauguration

Twenty eight member of the group Freedom From Religion, have joined forces with Michael Newdow(that wacky atheist who tried to have the words "under god" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance), in a lawsuit to remove the words "so help me God" from the Presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News.

Reverends Rick Warren and Joe Lowrey, who will be participating in the inauguration ceremony have been named defendants in the suit. "Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides. In America we are free to disagree. We can disagree with Rev. Rick Warren but we're not free to ask our government to settle the argument," Barker said, adding that government causes harm when it takes on "the mantel of religion and expresses religion as an official governmental function.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it's Obama's decision whether to include a prayer, not the government's. Sprigg also told Fox News that ""These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgement of the existence of God,"

Sprigg and I agree that this lawsuit will probably go nowhere. Seriously Atheists. Freedom of religion means that we can not be persecuted for believing what we wish to believe, or not believe. It does not make God a dirty word. If the word God is hated so much by Atheists, I think they should do the noble thing and start boycotting U.S currency. After all, that nasty little evil word is printed on it. Come on Atheists, put your money where your mouth is. Literally.

I'm fine with you not believing in God, its whatever floats your boat. But it's about time that atheists stop trying to bully the rest of the population out of their rights to say the word God.