State Dinners

[Sonny Limatina]

According to this Newsweek article, the woman who used to be in charge of checking names against guest lists was reassigned, and the position left unfilled.

This in itself is relatively meaningless--the Secret Service should still have been on the job last week. But I found the reason for her reassignment intriguing.

But when she met with Rogers last February and went over her job responsibilities, she says, the new social secretary told her, "We don't feel we have a need for that anymore." Rogers's explanation, according to Hargraves: "In these economic times, I don't think we're going to have very many lavish expensive dinners. It wouldn't look very good."

For all the veiled charges of uppitiness we've endured lately, I found it notable that the WH is in touch with how out-of-touch these dinners might make them appear. (The "wouldn't look very good" also reads as a bit condescending, but it's being relayed by the woman whose job it was eliminating, so it's hard to know what the actual words were, unmediated.)

Thoughts?

[Colonel Hogan]

It is my understanding that the East Room seats just under 150 for the average state dinner.

So the administration concerned about appearances in bad economic times erects a fricking tent and invites over 300.

Which, not-so-coincidentally, pretty much sums up their approach to the economy in general.

[Sonny Limatina]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

It is my understanding that the East Room seats just under 150 for the average state dinner.

So the administration concerned about appearances in bad economic times erects a fricking tent and invites over 300.

Which, not-so-coincidentally, pretty much sums up their approach to the economy in general.

Smooth....

[Minkey Boodle]

One in this state would include some geoduck.

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

It is my understanding that the East Room seats just under 150 for the average state dinner.

So the administration concerned about appearances in bad economic times erects a fricking tent and invites over 300.

Which, not-so-coincidentally, pretty much sums up their approach to the economy in general.

Big whoop. It's a State Dinner, not a night out of cheap over-salted pizza at Chuck E. Cheese's. I can just see the next constructed financial crisis meme coming out of the pipeline: "The taxpayers paid for those people to crash that party!"

Didn't the "old" administrations spend like, a thousand dollars on each replacement hammer and bolt nuts for military supplies? I'm pretty much tired of all the spins coming off this now-dated story about the famewhore party crashers. I know there's not much else to talk about lately, but surely there's gotta be something of substance happening somewhere in the country that deserves the front page?

[Sonny Limatina]

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

Big whoop. It's a State Dinner, not a night out of cheap over-salted pizza at Chuck E. Cheese's. I can just see the next constructed financial crisis meme coming out of the pipeline: "The taxpayers paid for those people to crash that party!"

Didn't the "old" administrations spend like, a thousand dollars on each replacement hammer and bolt nuts for military supplies? I'm pretty much tired of all the spins coming off this now-dated story about the famewhore party crashers. I know there's not much else to talk about lately, but surely there's gotta be something of substance happening somewhere in the country that deserves the front page?

Does the Tiger Woods thing count?

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by flat5ive

Does the Tiger Woods thing count?

Only up until he decides to talk, which just might be sometime tomorrow, unless he keeps us hanging on a string.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

Big whoop. It's a State Dinner, not a night out of cheap over-salted pizza at Chuck E. Cheese's. I can just see the next constructed financial crisis meme coming out of the pipeline: "The taxpayers paid for those people to crash that party!"

Didn't the "old" administrations spend like, a thousand dollars on each replacement hammer and bolt nuts for military supplies? I'm pretty much tired of all the spins coming off this now-dated story about the famewhore party crashers. I know there's not much else to talk about lately, but surely there's gotta be something of substance happening somewhere in the country that deserves the front page?

The difference is that the "old" administration at least wasn't dumb enough to run around bragging about what a great deal it got on hammers and eye bolts purchased by the Pentagon.

I'm not bitching about the cost of state dinners in principle. The OP asked for comment on a quotation concerning the sensitivity of this administration to the appearances of extravagance presented by state dinners. I simply offered that a state dinner MORE THAN TWICE THE SIZE of the average state dinner was an odd way to demonstrate that sensitivity.

Now if this turns out to be the only state dinner the Obama's ever host, then it will obviously constitute something of a bargain.

If, however, the tent should become a permanent fixture on the South Lawn, then send in the clowns. Oh, wait.....I forgot....

[Sonny Limatina]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

The difference is that the "old" administration at least wasn't dumb enough to run around bragging about what a great deal it got on hammers and eye bolts purchased by the Pentagon.

I'm not bitching about the cost of state dinners in principle. The OP asked for comment on a quotation concerning the sensitivity of this administration to the appearances of extravagance presented by state dinners. I simply offered that a state dinner MORE THAN TWICE THE SIZE of the average state dinner was an odd way to demonstrate that sensitivity.

Now if this turns out to be the only state dinner the Obama's ever host, then it will obviously constitute something of a bargain.

If, however, the tent should become a permanent fixture on the South Lawn, then send in the clowns. Oh, wait.....I forgot....

Just to be clear though, Col, the White House did not "run around bragging about" this decision. That's what I found interesting. It was a behind-the-scenes policy decision to be sensitive to the appearance of extravagence, that it said nothing about in public.

If this employee hadn't been demoted because of it--and subsequently quit (replaced, by the way, with a volunteer, not a paid employee)--we wouldn't know a thing about it.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by flat5ive

Just to be clear though, Col, the White House did not "run around bragging about" this decision. That's what I found interesting. It was a behind-the-scenes policy decision to be sensitive to the appearance of extravagence, that it said nothing about in public.

If this employee hadn't been demoted because of it--and subsequently quit (replaced, by the way, with a volunteer, not a paid employee)--we wouldn't know a thing about it.

No, no. I didn't mean to imply that the WH was grandstanding on the unfilled assistant social secretary position (or whatever it might be called). I'm simply observing that, however privately the declaration of modesty was made, the most recent dinner was just a tad contrary to that spirit.

If, in fact, they do decrease the number of such affairs, then more power to them. In the overall context of the Executive Office budget, however, I really don't believe it is that big of an expense to begin with. It's mainly a symbolic gesture even if it succeeds.

Kind of like paying for government healthcare with savings from Medicare "waste."

[IrezumiKiss]

State Dinners are arguably "extravagant" by default. Once again, it's The White House. Not Denny's. I don't understand how making seating for 300 heads when a particular room in an over-200-year-old national government building can't handle the capacity for modern socials is supposed to make me raise an eyebrow and and tap my pocketbook.

Shit, my old high school cafeteria could've held over a thousand heads. Why am I supposed to be impressed by the East Room plus a tent?

And how many State Dinners is the White House obliged to give? If they do one per year at the same time with the same amount of people, spread and booze, is that a cause for alarm? How many did Obama's predecessors give? Why are we concerned about this now? I don't remember hearing about this shit when our economy was being held hostage by OPEC in the late seventies.

[RobDownSouth]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

It is my understanding that the East Room seats just under 150 for the average state dinner.

So the administration concerned about appearances in bad economic times erects a fricking tent and invites over 300.

Which, not-so-coincidentally, pretty much sums up their approach to the economy in general.

Agreed. Such excess hasn't been seen since Reagan's orgy of conspicuous consumption honoring India back in 1982.

But THAT soiree was DIFFERENT, becoz it was REAGAN...

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

State Dinners are arguably "extravagant" by default. Once again, it's The White House. Not Denny's. I don't understand how making seating for 300 heads when a particular room in an over-200-year-old national government building can't handle the capacity for modern socials is supposed to make me raise an eyebrow and and tap my pocketbook.

Shit, my old high school cafeteria could've held over a thousand heads. Why am I supposed to be impressed by the East Room plus a tent?

And how many State Dinners is the White House obliged to give? If they do one per year at the same time with the same amount of people, spread and booze, is that a cause for alarm? How many did Obama's predecessors give? Why are we concerned about this now? I don't remember hearing about this shit when our economy was being held hostage by OPEC in the late seventies.

I realize you are in the cheering section for this administration, and that's fine - but I'm just wondering if there's anything the administration could do that would give you a, "That's fucked up" moment?

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by Minkey Boodle

One in this state would include some geoduck.

Jeff Corwin was gathering, cooking and eating those on Food Network a few weeks ago. Interesting.
He has this neat show where he goes around the world and tries exotic foods and part of it is that he's involved with gathering it and sometimes that's more fun that the food itself.

[KRCummings]

So what do you have to do to get a real invite to one of these things? I wanna go to one. I'm thinking that just showing up won't work anymore.

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

I realize you are in the cheering section for this administration, and that's fine - but I'm just wondering if there's anything the administration could do that would give you a, "That's fucked up" moment?

Let's put it this way...this isn't one of them.

The Secret Service dropped the ball over a couple of fame whores. That's it. That's fucked up. It was news the day after it happened. What the fuck else should it be over? Critiquing about how much State Dinners cost or the external expansion capacity of the East Room for more people means zilch. Aren't we great Americans supposed to be talking about more important things to this nation, such as Brad and Angie's looming possible divorce or Kate Gosselin's hairdo and shit?

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

Agreed. Such excess hasn't been seen since Reagan's orgy of conspicuous consumption honoring India back in 1982.

But THAT soiree was DIFFERENT, becoz it was REAGAN...

Read the OP in this thread, and get back to me.