Conservatives Bemoan Chelsea’s Big Fat Liberal Wedding
» 41 comments
Something strange is going on here: Conservatives don’t like money.
That’s the message I’m getting from the extreme distaste some conservative critics have shown for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. Forget about Rush Limbaugh’s $54 million Gulfstream jet, Mitt Romney’s $42 million donation to his own presidential campaign, John McCain’s seven or eight houses, the RNC’s vacations in Hawaii — the real source of outrage is Chelsea’s big fat Liberal wedding, and its estimated price tag of $2-3 million. For shame! Never mind President George W. Bush once joking at a dinner about “the haves and the have-mores….Some people call you the elite. I call you my base” — apparently, it’s now completely uncool to have money and spend it.
Over at Newsbusters, Kyle Drennan was outraged that guests of the Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding would be perching on porcelain port-a-potties, and was shocked — shocked! — that a segment on the CBS Early Show “did not raise any questions about the over-the-top extravagance of the affair, which is estimated to cost a few million dollars.” At Wizbang, the Clinton-wedding price tag was tut-tutted disapprovingly, and Chelsea was compared unflatteringly to Jenna Bush, whose private wedding on her parents’ ranch in Crawford was apparently a model of fiscal restraint.
It’s a strange double standard. I wrote about it earlier today at AOL:
Estimates for the Crawford wedding seem to be at $100,000, though I can’t find an official, confirmed source and I have to say that sounds more than a bit low (I do know that the Bushes saved on the cost of renting a property because they own their ranch!). By contrast — and it’s a contrast lots of critics have made (some abhorrently so) — Chelsea’s nuptials are estimated at $2 million, at least. (If that – the wedding details have been kept strictly private, and that may well be an inflated estimate.) Never mind that the median price of an American wedding is apparently $17,500 – way less than Chelsea’s nups, but probably representing a much greater percentage of financial resources for the families involved.
…The Clintons are rich. So are the Bushes. So are a lot of people in the higher echelons of the government. Senators! Congresspeople! Mitt Romney! Meg Whitman! Rich people have more money, and thus seem to spend it in wild disproportion to the rest of society. Romney spent an estimated $42-million of his own money on his 2008 presidential bid; now his name is on the shortlist of potential GOP nominees for 2012. Is spending $2 million to pay local businesses to put on your event so much worse than spending ten times as much on high-priced Beltway consultants? Rich people spend money differently, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats. But it’s amazing how the double-standard is applied depending on who is outraged by what.
Of all of it, it’s the Romney stat that gets me. $42 million! Of his own money! That’s not for a private, family event, either — that’s in a public election campaign, arguably where there are more pressing concerns implicated. I’m not saying that Romney shouldn’t be able to donate to his own campaign – like Hillary Clinton did! – I’m saying that there’s something wildly off here in all of the hand-wringing over Chelsea’s wedding costs. Let’s just find a standard and stick to it, okay? Because otherwise, it all amounts to not much more than what you might find in a porcelain port-a-potty.
p.s. To all those people nonplussed that Chelsea is being treated as special – well, sorry, but she is special. Politico’s Glenn Thrush wondered on Twitter about all the hype, asking if “meritocratically, isn’t she basically a 30y/o hedge funder headed to grad school?” Um, no. Perhaps a writer for POLITICO might grasp that. Gail Collins had it right: “Chelsea has been a national public figure against her will since she was 12, and in all that time she has never embarrassed her family — or us.” But let’s look at the flip side – that people feel entitled to write crap like this: “Chelsea Clinton is an ugly duckling who turned not into a beautiful swan, but a somewhat cute chick. Is this why she is sparing no expense for her wedding?” (Wrist slap for you, Robert Paul Reyes.) Yep. Not just some average 30 year old. Let her have her not-just-average wedding.
Outraged By The Cost of Chelsea’s Wedding? Just Chill [AOL News]
Is Chelsea Clinton Setting a Bad Example? [WSJ]
Breaking News on CBS ‘Early Show’: Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding Will Have Porcelain Port-a-Potties! [Newsbusters]
Photo of Chelsea Clinton via CityFile.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Meghan McCain Questions If Palin's Reality Show Is "The Most Presidential Behavior"
Chris Matthews: Was Obama Fiddling While Rome Burned?
Paul Krugman And Tom Friedman Are Fed Up: 'Obama Has Had No Vision'
Mediaite's Tommy Christopher Live Tweets Major Heart Attack, Thankfully Is Okay
Stephen Colbert And Jon Stewart Announce Big Plans For A Coming Announcement
Keith Olbermann Asks 'Where Are GOP Politicians' Condemning Koran Burning Event? »173
Fareed Zakaria: Al-Qaeda Not Really A Big Deal, Americans 'Overreacted' To 9/11 »125
Fiery Pres. Obama Speech: GOP "Sipping On A Slurpee" While Dems "Sweating" »105
"Burn A Koran Day" Sparks Protest From Afghan Muslims And General David Petraeus »99
Pres. Obama On DC Opponents: “They Talk About Me Like A Dog” »88
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
More Online/Print:
Barbara Boxer’s Adviser Arrested for Sneaking Pot into Hart Building
VP Joe Biden: Hot Dog Guy on Colbert Report
Tonight, Stephen Colbert saluted the troops that were so hospitable to him last June by inviting them to a military-only taping of The Colbert Report. But that's not all: to offer them something they couldn't get while they were deployed, he offered them all free beers and hotdogs -- hot dogs delivered by Vice President Joe Biden.
This Is What Happens When You Live-Tweet Your Own Heart Attack
Piers Morgan Tells Mediaite His Competition Is “Self-Indulgent”; “I Like Controversy”
In a surprise move when it was first rumored months ago, CNN confirmed today Piers Morgan will will be their new 9pmET host, beginning in January. Mediaite talked to Morgan this afternoon about his "self-indulgent" competition, his new colleague Eliot Spitzer and more.
RSS
41 comments
So, one guy at Newbusters writes about it and that means conservatives are “outraged”? I’m a conservative who keeps a close eye on the news, politicians, etc. and I don’t have the sense that conservatives are “outraged”. I’ve seen some mocking, which is expected. Methinks that there are more liberals like yourself who are “outraged” that one or two conservatives are “outraged”. But, I guess it’s as good an excuse as any to attack the usual suspects: Rush, Romney, McCain, Bush, blah, blah, blah. However, you do lose 15 lefty points for failing to tie Palin into the story. Shame on you! Your colleagues at Mediaite can help you out with that. Just ask!
Is that it, Rachel?
Seriously? Is that it? You worked yourself up over this silliness, and this is all you have to offer?
Check please!!!!
Well, I went and actually read the piece at Newsbusters by Kyle Drennan and he wasn’t “outraged that guests of the Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding would be perching on porcelain port-a-potties” like you wrote. Actually, he didn’t even say anything about it other than quote the CBS person. The only actual words out of his mouth were “The segment did not raise any questions about the over-the-top extravagance of the affair, which is estimated to cost a few million dollars.”
Anyway, I’m not sure what your definition of “outrage” is but you might consider looking it up at http://www.dictionary.com. I don’t know who Kyle Drennan is but did he stand you up one time? I mean, what’s with all the OUTRAGE over his piece? He mocked CBS’s infatuation with the affair. Nothing more, nothing less.
In fairness regarding my previous post, since I docked you 15 lefty points for failing to throw Sarah Palin in there, I hereby award you 50 lefty points for completely making up a story out of seemingly thin air in order to bash Rush, Romney, Bush, etc. Job well done, ma’am.
The port-a-potties were clearly raised as evidence of the “over-the-top” nature of the affair. I linked to and referred to numerous posts regarding Chelsea and criticism over the wedding costs. Spent the day surveying the coverage. I do stand by the post, and submit that Romney and McCain are hardly “usual suspects” on Mediaite (though Limbaugh crops up here and there). Besides, the substance of my argument was not against Romney or McCain for having/using money, but the double-standard being applied. So I’m not sure what the problem is. And I’m confused about why I would bring Sarah Palin into this story. That seems silly.
The conservative mainstream lamestream media will complain about absolutely anything to try and bring down the other side. Absolutely anything.
I’m an independent in the truest sense–not a conservative/liberal who doesn’t want to wear the party name–but I hate the GOP, because for my entire life, they’ve played politics “better”. And playing politics “better” makes the country worse. It poisons minds, dilutes facts, shuns reason, and ignores reality. It’s only getting worse, and 2010 will just reinforce those views for the GOP. 2012, and the future going forward, however, will be different.
The loud minority has convinced themselves they’re the awakened silent majority, but the real silent majority lies in the center.
Very True.
Hey, what did your mommies tell you? If you have nothing GOOD to say, STFU! Does it KILL you to wish the Clintons a happy wedding/marriage? What a bunch of pathetic sadists! I felt the SAME way when the Bush-Derangement-Syndrome liberals said the same thing during the Bush’s daughter’s wedding. You are a bunch of spiteful-hateful cowards. This is a non-political life-changing event and those who say anything spiteful will have worse things coming to them for their vitriol!
Well wishes from me for the newly weds!
Republitards have always groped for excuses to attack the Clintons and this ranks right up there with the attacks on Bill Clinton when his dog Buddy died. Attacking his daughter’s wedding shows what complete swine these wankers are.
While I think both Bill and Hillary are pukes, I wish for their daughter the greatest happiness that marriage can bring. I have similar remarks on two occasions previous to this and in spite of the bullshit as it relates to conservatives being in a twist about the cost of Chelsea’s wedding, I believe it is vastly overstated by the LWNJs who are ALWAYS trying to stir something up so they can have something to whine about. (Get my drift Rachel and Jelperman?)
(et al)
Really the only thing worth complaining about in the whole thing,conservative or liberal, is having to see her picture. MY GOD IS SHE UUGGLLYY!!! That and our tax dollars paid for the wedding, no doubt
Jelperman If you knew what kind of perversion Bill did to his dog to kill it, you would know why he was attacked. And Hillary watched and did nothing about it.
martytreetop
No way our tax dollars paid for that wedding. It cost too much! Plus it was too classy, didn’t have to be cost centered to every minority business on the planet, and didn’t end up costing 3Xs the initial costs. BTW – Where have you been? The Clintons are very very wealthy. I am sure they enjoyed spending their money on this. I know I would if I had that kind of money and a daughter.
Rachel
I am a conservative, overall, and I’m not upset over this wedding and the associated costs. If anything, myself and other conservatives I know applaud the Clintons for spending money during a recession. That’s what rich people do – they contribute to our well being by being innovators, inventors, etc., providing us gainful employment and then they spend money back into the economy during times of trouble. Are you sure it’s not you with the true problem with it?
Rachel talking about a double standard is so laughable.
Come on Rachel — lets see your outrage about jounolist, and the collusion between media and Team Obama.
Now that is outrageous.
The pictures of Chelsea are beautiful btw. And you really should think about “context” Rachel….after all that’s the big word in liberal land these days.
Dumbest story angle yet .
LOL…..good one, Rachel….substance….you had me going for a second…I thought you were being serious.
You sure got me…..substance…..hahahaha….you should be writing for The Onion, with that wicked sense of satire.
I think it’s your outrage at nonexistent outrage. It’s outrageous!
No, but it’s waaaaay too late for that lost cause. The Mezvinskys? Sure. Live long and prosper, you crazy kids! Mmmmwah!
Outraged? Really? I think Kyle was LAUGHING that CBS devoted six minutes to party planners, florists and the toilets. I didn’t get any outrage from that post, at all.
crap, i didn’t close a tag.
Rachel Sklar says:
July 31, 2010 at 10:54 pm (Quote)
………
Well, I didn’t click every single one of your links because that would take all day. It looks like a couple of them may relate to someone being OUTRAGED over the cost of the wedding. However, I think you need to re-read Kyle Drennan at newsbusters. He was pointing out the giddyness of the CBS people. The porta-a-potties thing was definitely mocking the news people for their excitement over the grandeur of the event. Anyway, it’s a stupid topic that I don’t really care about but to label conservatives as “outraged” is just incorrect. You may not see it, but your faux outrage over the non-existent outrage comes across as just another lame attempt to use a story to bash a bunch of conservatives/republicans.
Oh, plus 25 lefty points for sticking to your guns…even though we all know you basically made this story up out of thin air. Methinks you went searching for outrage in order to write a hit piece on conservatives, so any mention of the wedding (whether it was a post attacking the media’s obsession with the event or not) qualified as “outraged”. You mailed this one in. Re-read the newsbusters story you linked. If you would still like to describe that as “outrage” and “shock” then I don’t know what to say other than to maybe suggest you pull your head out of the sand.
Fixed that for you.
Yes, Rachel, but admitting it is the first step to recovery and believe me when I say, we will be there for you each and every step of the way. Seriously…each step….all of them.
RS: “That’s the message I’m getting from the extreme distaste some conservative critics have shown for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.”
Really? The message that I’m getting is that no one gives a shit.
This author’s lame excuse for excess by a prominent liberal family obviously chooses to ignore the main point of conservative outrage.
As a matter of fact we DON’T have a problem when rich people spend their OWN money as THEY see fit!
BUT.. we Do have problem when we are lectured by liberals how its ok for rich liberals to spend their money however THEY wish, but somehow it’s evil if the rest of us keep more of OUR money from state and federal taxes and get to spend it as WE wish!
It would be nice if liberals like this writer would extend the same courtesy to the rest of us that they obviously think we should extend to the Clintons..but they don’t.
Today..she makes excuses for the Clintons..and tomorrow..she will oppose continuation of the Bush tax cuts.
There is nothing more disgusting and hypocritical than an elitist limousine liberal.
Until ALL professed liberals have given away ALL of their own MONEY to fund the redistributionist causes they claim to believe in..BEFORE asking the rest of us to pay more taxes to fund them..I won’t give these hypocrites the benefit of any credibility whatsoever
Seriously, you make up a non-story, then you make up an online persona named “livefreeordi”? C’mon, man, that’s really dumb.
LANQUIHUE:
“Seriously, you make up a non-story, then you make up an online persona named “livefreeordi”? C’mon, man, that’s really dumb.”
Reread what I wrote , lanquihe?
Does it sound like I agree with Ms Sklar?
To the extent that there is any conservative “outrage”, it’s not at the Clintons for spending a lot of money on their only daughter’s wedding.
THAT is their right!
The “outrage” , as far as I’m concerned, is at the hypocritical double standard of liberals who think what the Clintons did is OK..but attack the rest of us for wanting to be able to do the same thing.
No, it sounds like you’re a retard having a conversation with yourself.
Today is a great day. Do you know why?
Because Rachel has NAILED conservatives for their blatant hypocrisy.
Every comment above by cons is just grasping at straws.
Sklar busted then and they know it.
But go ahead and “thumbs down” crybabies.
You lost today.
Just like you lost in 2006 and 2008.
And Chelsea looked great, btw.
Jenna Bush also looked great on her wedding day.
I read about it in a fawning piece on that left wing hate site CBS News.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/06/entertainment/main4074803.shtml
Shootfromthehip:
I guess those remedial reading classes didn’t work out so great for you, huh? The point is that there isn’t outrage over the wedding. There may be some mocking, which is expected, but no outrage. Ms. Sklar invented outrage in order to write a hit piece about Rush, Romney, Bush, etc. She referenced the guy from Newsbusters. Go read what he wrote. There is no outrage there, just mocking of the left-wing press. Try to pay attention next time.
This poster epitomizes the classless garbage that permeates this site. “Martytreetop” truly has no shame. And most of the posts here are complete tripe.
As always, the Little People, rancid & unwashed, filled to the gills with hatred, jealosey, envy, inner-rage. You go, folks!
What ever outrage is shown by the far right wing to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding is as a pebble in a landfill compared to their reaction to Pres. Obama’s daughters weddings. Expect to see not so -Brietbart covering that. Not that it’ll be racial or anything.
The problem with Chelsea’s wedding, or the Obama daughter’s wedding (if and when that happens) is not that they spent the money. It’s that the left makes a political career out of lambasting the “rich” (which usually means small business owners and others who had the nerve to work hard to make a good life for themselves) while spending in a way they’d NEVER allow, say the former CEO of BP, to do on *his* daughter’s weddings.
But, of course, the left is never the bastion of consistency.
As a conservative, I don’t give a rat’s behind of the Clinton’s spent $5 or $5 million on Chelsea’s wedding. But it’d be nice if they didn’t try to come up with ways to take away the wealth of others – or tell US how to spend OUR money – on a daily basis.
Susan recommended me a nice community, ______ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C o m ______ where black & white singles are looking for lovers to share interracial lifestyle with…. :D
As a conservative, I don’t give a rat’s behind of the Clinton’s spent $5 or $5 million on Chelsea’s wedding. But it’d be nice if they didn’t try to come up with ways to take away the wealth of others – or tell US how to spend OUR money – on a daily basis.
AS long as the money spent for a wedding like this isnt MY money (meaning taxpayer’s) I agree. But I am not at all convinced the typical conservative, being naturally greedy, would willingly spend “their” money on anything regardless of cause or need…that theyre not MADE to spend. Reminding these “conservatives of the fact that federal income taxes are at 1950 levels seems to have no impact on this tired mistaken talking point. Since that doesnt work, and knowing the typical conservative wont be agreeable with ANY level of tax, I WANT the government to make sure all pay their fair share…>That hasnt been the case here lately, especially for the ones with the mostest. And if it takes telling US how to spend OUR money, on a daily basis” to get the idea across, Im down for that too.
Isn’t this the equivalent of a Republican sex scandal? Just imagine how many black kids could have attended Sidwell Friends Academy and Yale with the money wasted on this wedding.
FOUR DAYS the story of Chelsea’s wedding has been on Medialite. On all four occasions, I believe we have heard from many conservatives who frequent this site, who have wished her well–and sincerely so! Elsewhere, all around the media, we have NOT heard anything of significance from any responsible conservative contrary to those same sentiments.
Rachel, you keep trying to stir the pot with some remark made by some irresponsible and crude person(s) that was not exactly what I would define as an “outrage.”
If you want to write about something that conservatives are outraged about try doing a piece on Rangel or Waters or ANY of the NUMEROUS miscreants in government on either side of the so-called “aisle.”
From where I sit, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, there are, from time to time, specious acts perpetrated by our public servants that should rightfully make our blood boil. Unfortunately, however, most of the partisan fools amongst the great unwashed can’t get by their partisanship to become outraged by one of their own.
Until or unless “We the Idiots” get past this useless bickering and decide that whe shall NOT accept anything less than exemplary behavior from those who run this country, this nation will decline further and further until one sad morning we wake up and wonder what the hell happened to America.
Her entire life she’s off limits from the press, and now that she gets married, all the no-lifes can’t wait to see it. Spending alot of money on the wedding had to be great for the local and state economy, only a moron would bemoan them for that. It does provide future ammo against the hate-the-rich marxist rhetoric the lefties love to spew though.
Pyrope where have you been? That day I woke up and wondered wth happened has come and gone. The only question is when the idiots will push the line too far and incite the next civil war, as they have before.
That fact is, is that many of these same politicians that were at this wedding, rail and rail against “the evil rich” because they spend money on such extravagance. Personally, I’m a libertarian so I con’t care what a free and private individual does with their money.. But don’t start start claiming that the “rich don’t pay their fair share” and turn around have spend more money on a wedding than most Americans will ever see in their lifetime, such as Secretary Clinton has said.
» Login » Register