Thursday, December 3, 2009

Michele Obama Says "Let Them Eat Cake"

While unemployment rises, companies and individuals both are struggling to keep their heads above water and steadily losing ground, the Obama's throw the most elaborate White House State Dinner in a decade.

Among the attendees were Steven Spielberg, Alfre Woodard and M Knight Shamalan. Among the uninvited, the Republican leadership, thereby fulfilling Obama's promise of bipartisanship. Uh huh.

This all becomes even more important because of the "crashers" at this big shindig. The usual person with a clipboard and guest list was not at the door by the secret service because of "cost savings" initiatives. They didn't believe this would be necessary. Guess they were wrong, but of course they have no culpability whatsoever with the gate crashing. Not that they'll ever admit.

With all of the talk about the gate crashers the actual size and scope of the dinner itself hasn't been talked about much. Was it really necessary, in a time when government spending is out of control and unemployment is rising, to give such a large and elaborate "dinner" event?

Now, a full year after his election, Obama is finally getting around to looking into the whole job issue. A lower priority than healthcare, climate change, date night and parties. The so called jobs summit, like the state dinner, excludes anybody with a dissenting opinion from his own and will be as ineffectual as his speech at West Point.

The Obama's appear to be living high while showing a disregard for those of us struggling in a troubled economy that he plans to cripple even further, and possibly permanently, with his pet projects. His dogged and unrelenting pursuit of these projects in the face rising voter disapproval and the negative impact to the economy shows a contempt for the average person. He and Michele might as well go on TV and say, "Let them eat cake."

Curious about how much the dinner alone, excluding the cost of the crasher fiasco, cost the taxpayers I was unable to find a hard number. Part of that transparency that we were promised. All I could find were comments that it cost over $1 million. I do not begrudge the cost of a state dinner. I understand they are necessary and we can't very well serve our visitors fried spam and mac & cheese, but this could definitely have been done on a smaller (and cheaper) scale.

I suddenly have an image of Obama, with his usual chin in the air - eyes down the nose look at America said with gravity, "I know you are struggling and we are working dilligently to solve the problems that the failed policies of the past created," then breaking into a grin, throwing up his arms and screaming, "But tonight Michele and I are going to PAR - TAY!"


  1. Since getting elected, the Obamas care not a whit about what the public has to say on anything. As he said at one point early on in response to a suggestion from a Republican, 'we won, and we gotta trump you on that.' He has with some arrogance and purpose affixed a tin ear from that point forward.

    In other words, y'all just go and eat some cake.

    With some effort, the 2010 elections can make him irrelevant, if we can take back both chambers. Which looks possible, if not probable now.

  2. I'm praying for the take back of Congress in 2010 but the shock at Obama's continued fight in Afghanistan (no matter how watered down) shows just how little attention was paid by the voters to what the politicians actually said.