Rachel Sklar said:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

martytreetop said:
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

This poster epitomizes the classless garbage that permeates this site. “Martytreetop” truly has no shame. And most of the posts here are complete tripe.

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.

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

livfreeordi said:
Does it sound like I agree with Ms Sklar?

No, it sounds like you’re a retard having a conversation with yourself.

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.

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

Really? The message that I’m getting is that no one gives a shit.

Rachel Sklar said:
I’m confused

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.

Publius219 said:
The loud minority has convinced themselves they’re the awakened silent majority, but the real silent majority lies in the center-right.

Fixed that for you.

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.

“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.”

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.

“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…”

Newsbusters: 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.

That’s shock – SHOCK? MSNBC has been all over the price tag of the wedding.

At Wizbang, the Clinton-wedding price tag was tut-tutted disapprovingly

Wizbang: “The price tag? Probably somewhere north of $2 million, possibly as high as $6 million. ”

Where was it tut-tutted? It sounds like they stated a fact?

I know this is basically a fluff piece, but don’t you understand that the inaccurate portrayal of those pieces does nothing but inflame hatred towards Conservatives, unjustly? (have any doubt, check the comments up thread)

How many on here bothered to check the links? If people just take what is written here, it sounds like conservatives across the board were attacking Chelsea. The examples presented are very misleading, and frankly, untrue.

And I have read nothing but nice things about Chelsea and her wedding across all kinds of Conservative sites. And if people did talk about the porta pottys being over the top, it’s because they probably are. More power to them for having them, but have we ever heard anything like that before? It’s funny, it’s worthy of comment, but Newsbusters was not *outraged*.

This was the coverage I remember of Jenna’s wedding: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushtwins/a/bush-wedding.htm

One big reason, I would imagine, in the difference in costs between the two women is location. New York vs. Texas. Also, Jenna was married at the ranch.

I, for one, think Chelsea deserves an expensive wedding. I heard it cost $3M. That’s one million for each word: Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

This is just like that story Tommy did: Right Wing Media Goes Nuts Over Obama’s “Mongrel” Comment; Others Follow Suit

There was no outrage, and no one was going nuts. What’s up with that?

Averreauxii said:
Does it KILL you to wish the Clintons a happy wedding/marriage?

No, but it’s waaaaay too late for that lost cause. The Mezvinskys? Sure. Live long and prosper, you crazy kids! Mmmmwah!

Rachel Sklar said:
So I’m not sure what the problem is.

I think it’s your outrage at nonexistent outrage. It’s outrageous!

Rachel Sklar said:
the substance of my argument

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.

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.

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?