14 Responses to “Oddly, the Contract Went to KBR”

1. #1 |  Pete Guither |  January 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

   Bad use of taxpayer dollars, but a reasonable price, given the subject matter.

   I work with artists every day, and for them to take this commission, where they have to make Rumsfeld look good, particularly if they have to sign it… yeah, you definitely charge high for something like that.

2. #2 |  John Petrie |  January 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

   Luckily, we’ll soon have a new president and a new administration that won’t waste any money on foolish things like this!

3. #3 |  Josh |  January 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

   Any word if they’ve designated some bailout money to commission a portrait of Henry Paulson?

4. #4 |  Todd |  January 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

   Luckily, we’ll soon have a new president and a new administration that won’t waste any money on foolish things like this!

   Please tell me this is sarcasm.
   The incoming President will make Bush look like a miser.
   I have already apologized to my five-year-old.

5. #5 |  jwh |  January 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

   Agreed, Todd…….bookmark this cost, Radley, and compare it against the cost of portraits of future Obama cabinet members. I predict, this amount will be way below the floor of the least expensive of them………four years from now.

6. #6 |  Mister DNA |  January 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

   I don’t know the cost, but the Obama portrait has already been painted.

   A great-cost cutting measure would be to not only cut out the government portraiture, but make it a rule that if a politician absolutely must have their picture hanging on bureaucracy walls, they should use a driver’s license or passport photo.

7. #7 |  John Wilburn |  January 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

   Wouldn’t an enlarged photograph be cheaper and less time-consuming?

8. #8 |  adam |  January 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

   The general public should be able to defecate on it, like Rumsfeld did the did the Constitution. Call it performance art, if you like.

9. #9 |  Jason |  January 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

   $46,790 sounds like a lot of money, but it’s a small price to pay for national security.

   http://www.rightklik.net/

10. #10 |  ktc2 |  January 17th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    It’s better than blowing thousands to cover lady justice’s cleavage.

    Still a waste though.

11. #11 |  | Popehat |  January 18th, 2009 at 2:12 am

    [...] life, rather than as “mere” money. Travis is inspired to this by news that the Pentagon spent $47,960 on a portrait of Donald Rumsfeld. One portrait: one human [...]

12. #12 |  Whim |  January 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am

    For $10.00, I’d draw a picture of that dumbass with a black crayon on butcher paper.

    With a 20% discount on top because I’m such a patriot.

13. #13 |  claude |  January 18th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    http://www.wmccnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/toilet-paper-donald-rumsfeld.jpg

14. #14 |  Alsadius |  January 21st, 2009 at 12:31 am

    He’s a member of Cabinet – they’ve had portraits of them stretching back centuries. It’s one of those costs that gets spent to keep the government respectable, make everything look historical, all that stuff, just like fancy legislative buildings and archiving of important documents. I admit, the price tag looks quite high, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they overpaid horribly, but I don’t know what the going rate is on a portrait that’s supposed to be hanging for the next millennium. I’d rather get the data on that before I criticize. If it turns out to be too much, hey, have at him. If that’s what a world-class portrait is worth, then it’s fine.

    And no, it has nothing to do with whether I like Rumsfeld or not. He was a pretty bad SecDef, but I have enough respect for the position to say that they should all get portraits, even the bad ones.

---