There are good arguments for modernizing the composition of the White House. The State Dining Room can seat only 140 guests (about as many as a standard wedding) and the East Room’s capacity is only marginally better at 200. For state dinners and other events with larger guest lists, a giant tent must be set up on the lawn outside the building, at great expense. People I know who have been to these stores find them to be quite flashy and not exactly the type you would choose at BCF or Anaconda. But the giant tent is still a bit embarrassing and impractical.
I know all of this will probably be an unpopular view with some readers. But there has been support for what Trump is doing in some quarters. In an article titled “In Defense of the White House Ballroom,” Washington Post The editorial board said that, in classic Trump style, “the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most discordant way possible.”
“Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses recognize the long-standing need for an event space like the one Trump is creating,” the board said.
“Conservationists express horror that Trump has not subjected his plans to their scrutiny, but the truth is that this project would not have happened – certainly not during his term – if the president had gone through the traditional review process. The plans would have faced death by a thousand cuts.”
The board noted that the White House had gone through many changes throughout its history. He also explained the long, tortured history of the modest Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial in Washington, DC, which took two decades from authorization to completion. “By contrast, Eisenhower planned and executed D-Day in about six months,” the newspaper said. Mail noted.
Amazon, founded by Publications Owner Jeff Bezos is one of dozens of major companies that have donated to fund the hall’s estimated $300 million ($457 million) cost. Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Google and Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, are among the others betting.
For me, a final opinion on whether Trump’s big build is good or bad will come down to its execution, rather than the idea itself.
Charging
I also found it shocking that there was more outrage over the demolition of a relatively boring building than over Trump’s open musings about running for a third term, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
As the debate over renewing the White House unfolded on the ground, a reporter aboard Air Force One asked Trump on Tuesday about the prospect of serving a third term and whether he could run as vice president and then return to the presidency after the 2028 election.
Trump gushed that he would “love” to serve a third term and even suggested that he had been advised that the change of vice president would be legal. However, he later acknowledged that this would not pass the pub test and that he would not attempt it.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, has also said it He Economist There was a plan to circumvent the pesky 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to serving more than two four-year terms. “At the appropriate time, we will lay out what the plan is,” he said. “But there is a plan.”
Trump openly said Wednesday that he was not allowed to run for a third term. But his continued flirtation with the idea earlier in the week, when no other president would consider it, was disturbing.
Surely, an attack on the 22nd Amendment should be cause for more outrage than the construction of a fancy new ballroom.
Thanks for reading and have a great weekend.
