View Full Version : $150,000 for Palin wardrobe
That's $150,000 for Palin and families wardrobe in 7 weeks.
That's like 300 John Edwards haircuts.
Yup, they're just like us Joe Six Pack mainstreeters.
-smak-
That's $150,000 for Palin and families wardrobe in 7 weeks.
That's like 300 John Edwards haircuts.
Yup, they're just like us Joe Six Pack mainstreeters.
-smak-
Forget $400 haircuts — accessorizing the GOP vice presidential nominee requires serious cash.
Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html) reports that the Republican National Committee appears to have spent $150,000 for clothes, hair and makeup for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family, following her pick as Sen. John McCain’s running mate.
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.
The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
The records also show nearly $10,000 paid to Macy’s in Minneapolis, nearly $6,000 to Barney’s and Bloomingdale’s, and $295 to Steiniauf and Stroller, a high-end baby store — even little Trig got in on the action.
On the bright side, even if McCain loses the election, the Palins will still look fabulous.
To be fair to the Palin family, that's like 1/2 the price of a Cindy McCain outfit.
-smak-
nataylor
10-21-2008, 09:40 PM
And she couldn't even wax for the Newsweek cover? ;)
HeyItsCory
10-21-2008, 09:43 PM
Petite maternity clothes aren't cheap.
Skanter
10-21-2008, 09:52 PM
That's $150,000 for Palin and families wardrobe in 7 weeks.
That's like 300 John Edwards haircuts.
Yup, they're just like us Joe Six Pack mainstreeters.
-smak-
What happened to the hockey mom who is just like you and me?
Palin seems more and more like someone who should be appearing on some moronic reality TV show than running for VP. It seems like the methods and criteria used for her choice as VP are similar to the methods the networks use for choosing contestants on these shows.
That's $150,000 for Palin and families wardrobe in 7 weeks.
That's like 300 John Edwards haircuts.
Yup, they're just like us Joe Six Pack mainstreeters.
-smak-
What happened to the hockey mom who is just like you and me?
Palin seems more and more like someone who should be appearing on some moronic reality TV show than running for VP. It seems like the methods and criteria used for her choice as VP are similar to the methods the networks use for choosing contestants on these shows.
Don't ask me :)
I said she was a fraud from like day 3.
-smak-
grondramb
10-22-2008, 02:12 AM
In a billion dollar campaign, I don't really care how much they spend on haircuts and clothes.
Agatha
10-22-2008, 09:01 AM
If she gets to keep the clothes, does it become taxable income?
Palin doesn't get to keep the outfits. From the Politico article in the 2nd post:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html
Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.
Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.
“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
Whether that was ALWAYS the intent I dunno, but it sure is now.
That's $150,000 for Palin and families wardrobe in 7 weeks.
That's like 300 John Edwards haircuts.
Yup, they're just like us Joe Six Pack mainstreeters.
-smak-
What happened to the hockey mom who is just like you and me?
Palin seems more and more like someone who should be appearing on some moronic reality TV show than running for VP. It seems like the methods and criteria used for her choice as VP are similar to the methods the networks use for choosing contestants on these shows.
Don't ask me :)
I said she was a fraud from like day 3.
-smak-
Day 3? Are you slow on the uptake, or what? :D
In a billion dollar campaign, I don't really care how much they spend on haircuts and clothes.
Normally, I don't either. But then again I seem to recall the right-wing going batshit over Edward's haircut....(although I would not venture to put you personally in that crowd - I agree its not the kind of thing that typically registers on your batshit-o-meter;-)
Plus it just is another example of the phony reformer, mavericky, shaker-upper bullshit image they are trying to peddle
pdhenry
10-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Obviously the difference is that Edwards got to keep his hair.
pgogborn
10-22-2008, 10:42 AM
Nice to see the old habit of discussing a females candidates clothes and how much she spends on them more so than male candidates is alive and well.
I know how much Edwards hair cost - how much did his suits cost?
(oh! and I see even Cindy got a mention)
((I would not be surprised in a parallel universe there are people posting about Michelle Obama's clothes))
Agatha
10-22-2008, 10:45 AM
Nice to see the old habit of discussing a females candidates clothes and how much she spends on them more so than male candidates is alive and well.
I know how much Edwards hair cost - how much did his suits cost?
(oh! and I see even Cindy got a mention)
((I would not be surprised in a parallel universe there are people posting about Michelle Obama's clothes))
If you spent $150K of your own money towards suits - I'd think you're batshit nuts, but if you can afford it - go ahead. The party spending $150K on her clothes just bugs me. I've always affiliated with the Republican party and am registered as such, but I won't be voting that way this election. I feel that spending that much is irresponsible. I might go vor 1/10th of that, solely because she's running for office. $150K is waaaay too much.
I'd say the same thing about Michelle Obama if the Dem party paid for her to have $150K, or anyone else for that matter.
Nice to see the old habit of discussing a females candidates clothes and how much she spends on them more so than male candidates is alive and well.
I know how much Edwards hair cost - how much did his suits cost?I doubt they cost what a women's outfit does. It's not the media, it's genders that make the difference.
Men aren't expected by our society to care a lot about what they look like. So men just aren't into clothes as much as women are, so a designer woman's outfit like Cindy McCain wore to the RNC - one that costs more than most people's houses - is generally going to outstrip what a quality man's suit costs.
(oh! and I see even Cindy got a mention)
((I would not be surprised in a parallel universe there are people posting about Michelle Obama's clothes))Haven't seen any of that. But I did see a retraction this morning about a story of Michelle Obama ordering lobster and caviar and champagne while staying at the Waldorf, that had been in the New York Post and is said to have been gleefully discussed by Rush Limbaugh on his show - it turns out Mrs. Obama didn't even stay at the Waldorf:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htm
Dirtypacman
10-22-2008, 11:05 AM
In another news Obama has a freaking television station.
pgogborn
10-22-2008, 11:10 AM
The party spending $150K on her clothes just bugs me.My blind spot is that in my neck of the wood the 3 major parties combined spend a few tens of millions of pounds fighting a general election - in comparison the amount spent by the parties in a U.S. general election is mind bogglingly incomprehensible and the 150k seems almost a drop in the ocean.
Another of the reasons why I feel a tad of sympathy for Palin is unlike Michelle she had to buy her 'working' clothes in one go and probably has less of her 'own' money to draw on.
In the big scheme of things, from a left/liberal perspective, the perhaps death blow that Obama has dealt to the public funding of elections worries me more than conservatives forgetting the merits of the "respectable Republican cloth coat".
pgogborn
10-22-2008, 11:17 AM
((I would not be surprised in a parallel universe there are people posting about Michelle Obama's clothes))Haven't seen any of that. But I did see a retraction this morning about a story of Michelle Obama ordering lobster and caviar and champagne while staying at the Waldorf, that had been in the New York Post and is said to have been gleefully discussed by Rush Limbaugh on his show - it turns out Mrs. Obama didn't even stay at the Waldorf:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htmTo see it try places such as the New York Times, not a Rupert rag.
One of the NYT articles even mentions of one of Michelle's 'frocks' " not the kind of garment most working-class voters can reasonably aspire to" >
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/fashion/08michelle.html
The party spending $150K on her clothes just bugs me.My blind spot is that in my neck of the wood the 3 major parties combined spend a few tens of millions of pounds fighting a general election - in comparison the amount spent by the parties in a U.S. general election is mind bogglingly incomprehensible and the 150k seems almost a drop in the ocean.The thing is not that $150K is a substantial sum compared to what the campaigns are spending. Heck, Obama's September fundraising haul alone could outfit a thousand Palins.
It's a chuckle for the Dems and a groan for the GOP because it's an embarrassingly whole lot of money to be spending on cloths and makeup when not only is the country facing a recession, but you're trying hard to sell yourself as a Just Plain Folks Small Town Hockey Mom.
Another of the reasons why I feel a tad of sympathy for Palin is unlike Michelle she had to buy her 'working' clothes in one go and probably has less of her 'own' money to draw on. The Palins had an income of $160K in 2007, they aren't exactly hurting for clothes money. And where do you get "all in one go"? What does she wear when she's out in public being the Governor of Alaska, cutting ribbons and giving speeches and attending meetings and whatnot, a t-shirt and sweatpants?
In the big scheme of things, from a left/liberal perspective, the perhaps death blow that Obama has dealt to the public funding of elections worries me more than conservatives forgetting the merits of the "respectable Republican cloth coat".That's something I'm still trying to wrap my head around, the strange notion that a campaign being financed by the public somehow is a bad thing.
jgerry
10-22-2008, 12:03 PM
In another news Obama has a freaking television station.
Boo freakin' hoo. Republicans have traditionally far outspent their Democratic counterparts in presidential elections. Hell, you'd think with all the Bush tax cuts, the R's could wrangle up some more cash and get their own television station. So for this election cycle, they get to suffer. Suck it Republicans.
As for the $150K -- I wouldn't care one bit about this, except for the outcry over Edwards' $400 haircuts. The right painted him as an elitist. What goes around comes around.
The party spending $150K on her clothes just bugs me.My blind spot is that in my neck of the wood the 3 major parties combined spend a few tens of millions of pounds fighting a general election - in comparison the amount spent by the parties in a U.S. general election is mind bogglingly incomprehensible and the 150k seems almost a drop in the ocean.
Another of the reasons why I feel a tad of sympathy for Palin is unlike Michelle she had to buy her 'working' clothes in one go and probably has less of her 'own' money to draw on.
In the big scheme of things, from a left/liberal perspective, the perhaps death blow that Obama has dealt to the public funding of elections worries me more than conservatives forgetting the merits of the "respectable Republican cloth coat".
As a proud financial supporter of Obama, I am thrilled to have had the opportunity to exercise my First Amendment right by donating to his campaign.
And as far as "public financing" goes, where do you think all of that money for those McCain robocalls is coming from? It's coming from the RNC, who John McCain and Sarah Palin are actively raising HUGE sums of money for.
Obama had over 600,000 new donors in September, with an average donation amount of $100.00. Meanwhile, John McCain and the RNC are trying to have their public financing cake and eat it too.
IMO, the only viable argument against Obama on this issue is the one about his earlier pledge to "sit-down" with McCain and discuss the issue.
davebogart
10-22-2008, 12:58 PM
What happened to the hockey mom who is just like you and me?
What-a-ya mean what happened to her? She's still just like you and me: Human. She did nothing illegal or unethical in accepting a wardrobe. You'd do the same, as would I.
busyba
10-22-2008, 01:06 PM
Obviously the difference is that Edwards got to keep his hair.
Even the hair that got cut off?
AJRitz
10-22-2008, 01:19 PM
No. The hair that got cut off was, of course, collected and auctioned for charity. ;)
What-a-ya mean what happened to her? She's still just like you and me: Human. She did nothing illegal or unethical in accepting a wardrobe. You'd do the same, as would I.Actually there IS a slight legal/ethical question, I've heard they aren't allowed to pay for items for personal use with RNC funds. That's probably why the McCain campaign machinery whirred and hiccuped for a bit before disgorging that bit about how the clothes were ALWAYS going to go to charity afterward.
But any legal/ethical aspects aside, I suspect that if *I* were going around telling the American people I was just plain small-town-folks like them and NOT one o' them out-a-touch coastly elitists, I'd probably wonder if it was such a good idea to be telling them all that while wearing expensive designer outfits from ritzy cloastly elitist stores.
Call it a "common sense" aspect.
pgogborn
10-22-2008, 01:58 PM
And as far as "public financing"As far as public financing goes my point is that when candidates accept public funding (matching federal funding) a limit on the total amount spent also follows.
If Obama has put the final nail into the matching federal funding / limits on total spending cross I would not be surprised if campaigns run for even longer, - and there will be even more expensive suits and hair cuts.
Of course I would not want to limit anybodies 1st Amendment rights - and aindik has convinced me that existing campaign finance laws already do it.
However, I am far from convinced that throwing a lot of money at an election over an extended public is the best way to run an election based on policy issues - I think people are less likely to hit the off switch and absorb the policy issues if there is a intense campaign over a much shorter period (just a personal opinion, but I was 'persuaded' of it by a former member of the Clinton administration).
busyba
10-22-2008, 02:10 PM
I agree that this 2 year long campaign is ridiculous, but I have no idea how it can be shortened.
pgogborn
10-22-2008, 02:26 PM
I agree that this 2 year long campaign is ridiculous, but I have no idea how it can be shortened.Just give them less money.
(oh, and when candidate suggests that is the people who make the early endorsements that will get the ambassadorships etc treat that as electoral fraud)
murgatroyd
10-22-2008, 02:38 PM
http://beauty.ivillage.com/newsletters/archive/lifestyle/0,,dgp4qz6z,00.html
Sign up for this and other iVillage newsletters at: https://subscriber.ivillage.com/funnels/5
http://a820.g.akamai.net/f/820/822/1d/i.ivillage.com/nl/nl_iv_logo_new.gif (http://www.ivillage.com/) Beauty & Style Solutions (http://beauty.ivillage.com/)
October 22, 2008 - Newsletter
http://a820.g.akamai.net/f/820/822/1d/i.ivillage.com/nl/nl_star_bullet.gif Style Yourself Palin
http://a820.g.akamai.net/f/820/822/1d/i.ivillage.com/BS/136/palin-costume-136.jpg (http://makeover.ivillage.com/makeover/index.jsp)Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin's wardrobe is causing quite a stir. From her Naughty Monkey pumps (http://stealsanddeals.ivillage.com/beauty/archives/2008/09/palins-pumps.html) to her rimless eyeglasses (http://beauty.ivillage.com/slideshow/beauty_style/sarah_palins_style_sense/going_rimless/), people can't help but be intrigued by her style choices.
Are you a fan of Sarah Palin's style? If you want to take after the vice presidential candidate's fashion sense or you plan to dress up like her for Halloween (http://beauty.ivillage.com/slideshow/beauty_style/ivillage_weekly_top_10_fabulous_costumes_for_fashi onistas/dressing_up_for_halloween/), these may help:
DIY costume for Halloween (http://beauty.ivillage.com/slideshow/beauty_style/ivillage_weekly_top_10_fabulous_costumes_for_fashi onistas/vp_of_costume_cool/)
Try her hairstyle and glasses online (http://makeover.ivillage.com/makeover/index.jsp)
Check out Sarah Palin's style sense (http://beauty.ivillage.com/slideshow/beauty_style/sarah_palins_style_sense/the_politics_of_fashion/)
How to re-create her updo (http://beauty.ivillage.com/hair/0,,dl7wgw4z,00.html)
Her coat twin at Ann Taylor (http://stealsanddeals.ivillage.com/beauty/archives/2008/10/waving-the-coat-of-victory.html)
These Sarah Palin-related videos might also interest you:
Sarah Palin on SNL (http://video.ivillage.com/player/?id=769907) http://i.ivillage.com/NN/videoicon.jpg
Are Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama alike? (http://video.ivillage.com/player/?id=738761) http://i.ivillage.com/NN/videoicon.jpg
Sarah Palin talks to CNBC (http://video.ivillage.com/player/?id=666907) http://i.ivillage.com/NN/videoicon.jpg
(http://makeover.ivillage.com/makeover/index.jsp)
davebogart
10-22-2008, 03:01 PM
What-a-ya mean what happened to her? She's still just like you and me: Human. She did nothing illegal or unethical in accepting a wardrobe. You'd do the same, as would I.Actually there IS a slight legal/ethical question, I've heard they aren't allowed to pay for items for personal use with RNC funds. That's probably why the McCain campaign machinery whirred and hiccuped for a bit before disgorging that bit about how the clothes were ALWAYS going to go to charity afterward.
But any legal/ethical aspects aside, I suspect that if *I* were going around telling the American people I was just plain small-town-folks like them and NOT one o' them out-a-touch coastly elitists, I'd probably wonder if it was such a good idea to be telling them all that while wearing expensive designer outfits from ritzy cloastly elitist stores.
Call it a "common sense" aspect.You are right, of course. But she is still human -- just like you and me -- imperfect. Yet her detractors expect her to be perfect, know she isn't, and like to point out and magnify every flaw. I think her imperfection is what I like most about her over any other politician ever. She is real. I can't think of any time I've ever looked at any politician and didn't think "what a phony." Until now.
busyba
10-22-2008, 03:10 PM
I think her imperfection is what I like most about her over any other politician ever.
Then you should probably go ahead and vote to elect her "President for Life", because they don't get much more imperfect than her. :2funny:
Yet it's ok for her to say she's your average every day hockey mom, Wasilla main streeter, even when she's flying to NYC and staying at a $700 a night hotel and billing the state of Alaska for it? And taking her kids everywhere and billing the state of Alaska.
That's not the person she has made herself out to be is it?
-smak-
Change "billing" to "bilking"
busyba
10-22-2008, 03:12 PM
BTW, I like how you handwave away hypocrisy and possible misuse of campaign funds as mere "imperfections". Well played.
You are right, of course. But she is still human -- just like you and me -- imperfect. Yeah, but you and I know better than to consider ourselves ready to be president, no?
Yet her detractors expect her to be perfect, know she isn't, and like to point out and magnify every flaw. I think her imperfection is what I like most about her over any other politician ever. She is real. I can't think of any time I've ever looked at any politician and didn't think "what a phony." Until now.You might wanna take a closer look, mi amigo. A whole lot of her turns out to be false when you wipe off the thin facade. Opposed bridge to nowhere? Nope. Hates earmarks? Nope. She's even walking around claiming a report that found her guilty of abusing her power says that she was completely innocent. That might be something "real", but it ain't something to be proud of.
davebogart
10-22-2008, 03:22 PM
I think her imperfection is what I like most about her over any other politician ever.
Then you should probably go ahead and vote to elect her "President for Life", because they don't get much more imperfect than her. :2funny:Well, maybe not for life but at least until she's no longer hawt.
grondramb
10-22-2008, 03:59 PM
In a billion dollar campaign, I don't really care how much they spend on haircuts and clothes.
Normally, I don't either. But then again I seem to recall the right-wing going batshit over Edward's haircut....
Fair point.
Real irony there too since a certain wing of Republicans were trying to claim Edwards was gay when it turned out to be the other reason middle aged men take particular interest in their appearance.
Ok this is weird.
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200810u/palin-clothes.jpg
Jeff Larson is the guy who McCain pays to make his Robocalls, the same guy who Karl Rove used to make the Robocalls against McCain in 2000.
Why is your robocall guy buying $130,000 worth of clothing for the VP candidate?
So weird.
-smak-
Why is your robocall guy buying $130,000 worth of clothing for the VP candidate?He has great fashion-sense? He didn't have anything else to do while his robos are robocalling? He likes to touch the things she's going to wear?
procrastinator
10-22-2008, 04:41 PM
He likes to touch the things she's going to wear?
Eeewww.
So, a Louis Vuitton bag for a 7 yr old (or 8, or however old she is)? :huh:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/460/slide_460_11037_large.jpg
Fofer
10-22-2008, 11:41 PM
In contrast:
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1954/19vt2.jpg
"Senator Obama was doing press interviews by telephone in a holding room between events. Sometime later as he was getting ready to begin his event, he asked me if I was photographing his shoes. When I said yes, he told me that he had already had them resoled once since he entered the race a year earlier. Providence, R.I., 3/1/2008."
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
TigerFan
10-23-2008, 12:26 AM
Gives new meaning to the phrase "Walk a mile in my shoes"
Skanter
10-23-2008, 01:10 AM
What happened to the hockey mom who is just like you and me?
What-a-ya mean what happened to her? She's still just like you and me: Human. She did nothing illegal or unethical in accepting a wardrobe. You'd do the same, as would I.
Speak for yourself, pal. I'm not a conspicuous consumption kind of guy - I feel weird wearing overly expensive clothes, or eating in very expensive restaurants - even if I can afford it at times.
And, I don't go around making speeches all over the country saying I represent the common six-pack guy, hockey dad and small-town regular folk, either.
Palin is a fake and a hypocrite.
grondramb
10-23-2008, 01:20 AM
I suspect its simpler than being made out.
Palin is a huge fund raiser.
Big Republican donors can't give directly to McCain so they have to give to the RNC.
Given those fancy circles its probably a good investment for the RNC to dress her up.
Uh oh
"Mr. President, I do not believe the general public is aware of how their campaign contributions are being used. I think it would be fair to say that if they did, they would be outraged, and well they should be.
According to Ms. Fritz, campaign funds have been used to buy such items as a jumbo illuminated globe from Hammacher Schlemmer, for trips to exotic locals such as Thailand, Taiwan, and Italy, and for tuxedos and an unexplainable $299 for bow ties.
Mr. President, it is time to break with the norm. What is occurring is wrong, and it must be stopped. It is time the Congress, and those whose privilege it is to serve there, learn to live within its means. Restricting the use of campaign funds for personal purposes is a vital first step in that direction.
Uh Oh
"Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment before the Senate is a very simple one. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases, noncampaign automobile expenses, country club memberships, and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature.
Madam President, I want to emphasize I will be citing some examples of how campaign funds have been used which are extremely egregious, but I want to point out they are not illegal, and the purpose of this amendment is to restrict the use of those campaign funds because, if we are truly going to have campaign finance reform, I do not believe that campaign funds should be used for such things as country club dues, tuxedos, vacations, and other purposes for which they are now almost routinely used by certain Members of both bodies.
John McCain A long time ago, in a senate far far away.
-smak-
PS. Wait until I show you the one where McCain admits he's a socialist. That's a doozy.
-smak-
I suspect its simpler than being made out.
Palin is a huge fund raiser.
Big Republican donors can't give directly to McCain so they have to give to the RNC.
Given those fancy circles its probably a good investment for the RNC to dress her up.
I actually think Michelle Obama looks perfectly fine in her $150 Gap dresses.
-smak-
grondramb
10-23-2008, 01:32 AM
I suspect its simpler than being made out.
Palin is a huge fund raiser.
Big Republican donors can't give directly to McCain so they have to give to the RNC.
Given those fancy circles its probably a good investment for the RNC to dress her up.
I actually think Michelle Obama looks perfectly fine in her $150 Gap dresses.
-smak-
Heck I didn't even notice Palin's clothes had changed but in some circles that makes a big difference - and its not hard to imagine more of those types being at $50,000 a plate dinners.
evizzle
10-23-2008, 01:33 AM
In contrast:
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1954/19vt2.jpg
Scenario #1
Republican: "Look at those ratty old shoes"
Democrat: "Racist!"
Scenario #2
Democrat: "Those shoes show us that he is one of us!"
Republican: "Nice propaganda piece...:
Your choice ;)
As for the Palin wardrobe, pretty hilarious, but I think we can say with fairly good odds that it is the norm, rather than the exception. Politics are big business, and appearance is everything. If a party buying clothes for a candidate affects someone's opinion of the facts of the matter, than what is the point of discussing policy or political stances?
I suspect its simpler than being made out.
Palin is a huge fund raiser.
Big Republican donors can't give directly to McCain so they have to give to the RNC.
Given those fancy circles its probably a good investment for the RNC to dress her up.
I actually think Michelle Obama looks perfectly fine in her $150 Gap dresses.
-smak-
Heck I didn't even notice Palin's clothes had changed but in some circles that makes a big difference - and its not hard to imagine more of those types being at $50,000 a plate dinners.
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
grondramb
10-23-2008, 01:43 AM
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
I'm guessing she dresses differently at high end fund raisers and since she's the big fund raising draw they viewed her ward robe as an investment.*
*Not that it excuses them if they didn't follow the rules.
Skanter
10-23-2008, 01:44 AM
I actually think Michelle Obama looks perfectly fine in her $150 Gap dresses.
-smak-
Heck I didn't even notice Palin's clothes had changed but in some circles that makes a big difference - and its not hard to imagine more of those types being at $50,000 a plate dinners.
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
I guess she's just your normal hockey-mom mainstreeter in elitist's clothing...she said it was just stuff "off the rack" -- at Neiman Marcus and Sak's Fifth Avenue!
But, she's not keeping the clothes. They will go to "charity" after the election. WTF - will they give the 150K of clothes to homeless women? Look for them in your local thrift shop!
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
I'm guessing she dresses differently at high end fund raisers and since she's the big fund raising draw they viewed her ward robe as an investment.*
*Not that it excuses them if they didn't follow the rules.
Do you seriously not understand why she's being criticized?
-smak-
grondramb
10-23-2008, 02:31 AM
Do you seriously not understand why she's being criticized?
-smak-
It sounds like she is being critiicized for getting nice clothes when she started running for national office
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10182008/photos/palin.jpg
Skanter
10-23-2008, 02:38 AM
Do you seriously not understand why she's being criticized?
-smak-
It sounds like she is being critiicized for getting nice clothes when she started running for national office
...or, maybe she's in it for the clothes?;)
http://www.jackbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sarah-palin-vogue-magazine.jpg
murgatroyd
10-23-2008, 03:06 AM
What-a-ya mean what happened to her? She's still just like you and me: Human. She did nothing illegal or unethical in accepting a wardrobe. You'd do the same, as would I.Actually there IS a slight legal/ethical question, I've heard they aren't allowed to pay for items for personal use with RNC funds. That's probably why the McCain campaign machinery whirred and hiccuped for a bit before disgorging that bit about how the clothes were ALWAYS going to go to charity afterward.
But any legal/ethical aspects aside, I suspect that if *I* were going around telling the American people I was just plain small-town-folks like them and NOT one o' them out-a-touch coastly elitists, I'd probably wonder if it was such a good idea to be telling them all that while wearing expensive designer outfits from ritzy cloastly elitist stores.
Call it a "common sense" aspect.You are right, of course. But she is still human -- just like you and me -- imperfect. Yet her detractors expect her to be perfect, know she isn't, and like to point out and magnify every flaw. I think her imperfection is what I like most about her over any other politician ever. She is real. I can't think of any time I've ever looked at any politician and didn't think "what a phony." Until now.
Huh?
She goes out and spend campaign money on a new wardrobe for her family -- which is expressly against the rules, but we'll put that aside for the moment -- she spends more for this wardrobe than some people's mortgages, and then she goes out to small-town America and makes out that she is an ordinary mom just like them?
You call that genuine?
Oh, please! In the ranks of phony politicians, Palin is one of the phoniest.
P.S. and if I were in her shoes, no, I would NOT go out and spend the kind of money she just did. I would call a stylist to help me pick out some looks from the stores I could actually afford. Because I would be paying the bill.
Jan
murgatroyd
10-23-2008, 03:29 AM
Heck I didn't even notice Palin's clothes had changed but in some circles that makes a big difference - and its not hard to imagine more of those types being at $50,000 a plate dinners.
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
I guess she's just your normal hockey-mom mainstreeter in elitist's clothing...she said it was just stuff "off the rack" -- at Neiman Marcus and Sak's Fifth Avenue!
But, she's not keeping the clothes. They will go to "charity" after the election. WTF - will they give the 150K of clothes to homeless women? Look for them in your local thrift shop!
No, you auction them off to a collector / museum / whoever -- someone who will pay expressly to have wardrobe that La Palin has worn.
Then you take the proceeds of the auction and give the money to the charity -- to fund the homeless women's shelter or whatever.
Jan
TheIndependent
10-23-2008, 03:41 AM
Huh?
She goes out and spend campaign money on a new wardrobe for her family -- which is expressly against the rules, but we'll put that aside for the moment
why put it aside?
did SHE go out and spend campaign money on these shopping sprees, or was this the RNC spending tons of money making her up/over/supplying things for her/her family?
what rules state that a campaign can not spend $ on a candidate's clothing?
-- she spends more for this wardrobe than some people's mortgages, and then she goes out to small-town America and makes out that she is an ordinary mom just like them?
Provide the source that Palin herself went and spent $150,000+.
P.S. and if I were in her shoes, no, I would NOT go out and spend the kind of money she just did. I would call a stylist to help me pick out some looks from the stores I could actually afford. Because I would be paying the bill.
Jan
If the campaign that drafted you had a swarm of people at your beck and call shuffling you here/there/everywhere and scripting out your wardrobe and items, you'd purposely go against what they give you/say to wear and micromanage that part of the campaign?
While we are on the subject of clothing, how much is a suit for McCain, Biden or Obama? Are they going to Men's Warehouse in the bargain isle?
The level of 'outrage' over this $150,000 in campaign spending strikes me as fairly pathetic when you all want to spend hundreds of BILLIONS of TAXPAYER $ on federal programs and giveaways in your quest to 'spread the wealth'.
While we are on the subject of clothing, how much is a suit for McCain, Biden or Obama? Are they going to Men's Warehouse in the bargain isle?
The level of 'outrage' over this $150,000 in campaign spending strikes me as fairly pathetic when you all want to spend hundreds of BILLIONS of TAXPAYER $ on federal programs and giveaways in your quest to 'spread the wealth'.
First of all, it's not outrage at the money. The only people who can be outraged at the money are people who gave to the RNC. And some of them are.
We are LAUGHING at them. It's horrible politically to go around all day every day saying you're an average hockey mom, and everybody's Joe The Plumber, and have an $18,000 a week wardrobe allowance!
Who cares how much Obama, Biden or McCain are paying for their clothes.
If I claim to be a Vegan(!), and I'm caught eating meat, I don't go around saying well, everybody else is eating meet.
-smak-
busyba
10-23-2008, 10:48 AM
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
I guess she's just your normal hockey-mom mainstreeter in elitist's clothing...she said it was just stuff "off the rack" -- at Neiman Marcus and Sak's Fifth Avenue!
But, she's not keeping the clothes. They will go to "charity" after the election. WTF - will they give the 150K of clothes to homeless women? Look for them in your local thrift shop!
No, you auction them off to a collector / museum / whoever -- someone who will pay expressly to have wardrobe that La Palin has worn.
The Museum of Natural Mediocrity.
Skanter
10-23-2008, 12:05 PM
Why would somebody pegged as appealing to joe sixpack buy $150,000 in wardrobe.
That's $2,500 a day for 2 months.
-smak-
I guess she's just your normal hockey-mom mainstreeter in elitist's clothing...she said it was just stuff "off the rack" -- at Neiman Marcus and Sak's Fifth Avenue!
But, she's not keeping the clothes. They will go to "charity" after the election. WTF - will they give the 150K of clothes to homeless women? Look for them in your local thrift shop!
No, you auction them off to a collector / museum / whoever -- someone who will pay expressly to have wardrobe that La Palin has worn.
Then you take the proceeds of the auction and give the money to the charity -- to fund the homeless women's shelter or whatever.
Jan
Well, I think her panties might sell to many Republicans, but no collector or museum would have much interest in the rest.:D
murgatroyd
10-23-2008, 12:48 PM
Huh?
She goes out and spend campaign money on a new wardrobe for her family -- which is expressly against the rules, but we'll put that aside for the moment
why put it aside?
did SHE go out and spend campaign money on these shopping sprees, or was this the RNC spending tons of money making her up/over/supplying things for her/her family?
what rules state that a campaign can not spend $ on a candidate's clothing?
-- she spends more for this wardrobe than some people's mortgages, and then she goes out to small-town America and makes out that she is an ordinary mom just like them?
Provide the source that Palin herself went and spent $150,000+.
P.S. and if I were in her shoes, no, I would NOT go out and spend the kind of money she just did. I would call a stylist to help me pick out some looks from the stores I could actually afford. Because I would be paying the bill.
Jan
If the campaign that drafted you had a swarm of people at your beck and call shuffling you here/there/everywhere and scripting out your wardrobe and items, you'd purposely go against what they give you/say to wear and micromanage that part of the campaign?
While we are on the subject of clothing, how much is a suit for McCain, Biden or Obama? Are they going to Men's Warehouse in the bargain isle?
The level of 'outrage' over this $150,000 in campaign spending strikes me as fairly pathetic when you all want to spend hundreds of BILLIONS of TAXPAYER $ on federal programs and giveaways in your quest to 'spread the wealth'.
All right, let's talk about the ethics, too.
John McCain has a hand in passing campaign spending reform, a part of which includes not spending money on personal items like clothing. I believe the rules and other quotes have been posted earlier in this thread and elsewhere on this forum.
Now someone is dropping $150K of campaign money on clothing for his running mate and her family? And doing this while she is doing a 'plain folks just like you' campaign theme -- she is wearing clothing from high-end stores and at the same time, criticizing other people for being elitist and 'not real Americans'?
Excuse me?
Tell me where Palin gets off, invoking the 'good Republican cloth coat' motif, when the RNC has dropped enough money to buy someone's house on clothes from Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue.
*And* when the RNC has spent campaign money to do this, in express violation of the rules that Palin's running mate passed in the Senate!
The underlying message is clear:
It is the right of Republican candidates and politicians to enrich themselves and their cronies whenever they can, and if the money could be better spent on the constituency, that's just too damn bad, because they are looking out for number one.
Republican candidates and politicians don't have to pay any attention to rules -- rules are something you pass to look good to voters, and to hamstring your opponents, if they are chumps and actually follow them.
They achieve this while doing what they damn well feel like with one hand, and waving the red flag of 'the Democrats want to tax and spend' with the other, distracting the rank-and-file Republican voters (who actually know something and care about the core values of fiscal responsibility, morality, and integrity).
Perhaps some of you feel that I don't have a right to be outraged about this if it isn't my campaign contribution which is being mis-used in this way.
But I do have the right to ask: when Sarah Palin goes out and pretends to be an ordinary mom, how many of the women in her audience have ever set foot in Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue, never mind spent any money on clothing there?
Don't give me this 'just plain folks' B S.
I guess it's okay with you that Palin spent money to redecorate City Hall instead of fixing the streets and infrastructure of her town while she was Mayor. Funny how people who complain about Democrats wanting to 'redistribute the wealth' are the ones making sure their own friends get richer while everyone else does without.
Jan
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 12:58 PM
The dead tree newspaper I was reading this morning run a front page story with a headline making a link between the cost of Palin's clothes and the total amount the presidential candidates are spending together with an inside two page spread that included many graphics on how much money was being spent on the elections.
Not all the statistics tied up with each other but for what it is worth the article mentioned that according to the Centre for Responsive Politics the total cost of the presidential race could be as much as $2.4 billion and the US elections as a whole could cost $5.3 billion (when including spending by unions and other outside organisations and groups).
pdhenry
10-23-2008, 01:18 PM
according to the Centre for Responsive Politics the total cost of the presidential race could be as much as $2.4 billion Which is less than Coca-Cola spent on advertising in 2006 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-22-electmoney_N.htm), to put it in perspective. So it's a lot, but maybe it's more important than sugar water.
busyba
10-23-2008, 01:28 PM
according to the Centre for Responsive Politics the total cost of the presidential race could be as much as $2.4 billion Which is less than Coca-Cola spent on advertising in 2006 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-22-electmoney_N.htm), to put it in perspective. So it's a lot, but maybe it's more important than sugar water.
It's also not relevant as to whether spending $150,000 in less than 3 months on clothing, while at the same time professing to be not "elite" and not "out-of-touch" with "real americans" is completely ridiculous or not.
grondramb
10-23-2008, 01:29 PM
Now someone is dropping $150K of campaign money on clothing for his running mate and her family? And doing this while she is doing a 'plain folks just like you' campaign theme -- she is wearing clothing from high-end stores and at the same time, criticizing other people for being elitist and 'not real Americans'?
Its an investment - she brings in a lot more than that from people who care about that kind of thing. Think about the flip side - if she refused to dress up enough to raise $100 million.
*And* when the RNC has spent campaign money to do this, in express violation of the rules that Palin's running mate passed in the Senate!
That's the only real issue here I see.
Perhaps some of you feel that I don't have a right to be outraged about this if it isn't my campaign contribution which is being mis-used in this way.
Don't let anybody tell you that - you get to feel however you feel.
pseudonym
10-23-2008, 01:36 PM
Do other candidates get their campaigns to pay for their clothes? Has Joe Biden sent the DNC a bill for $150K from Jos A Bank or something?
Its an investment - she brings in a lot more than that from people who care about that kind of thing. Think about the flip side - if she refused to dress up enough to raise $100 million.The fancy duds bring in enough extra donations to cover the extra expense? I gotta doubt that.
grondramb
10-23-2008, 01:42 PM
Do other candidates get their campaigns to pay for their clothes? Has Joe Biden sent the DNC a bill for $150K from Jos A Bank or something?
Is Biden making appearances that raise millions for the DNC? If so he could probably get reimbursed for expenses.
grondramb
10-23-2008, 01:44 PM
Its an investment - she brings in a lot more than that from people who care about that kind of thing. Think about the flip side - if she refused to dress up enough to raise $100 million.
The fancy duds bring in enough extra donations to cover the extra expense? I gotta doubt that.
I think they probably do but the important point is whether the RNC can reimburse expenses on behalf of someone doing extensive work for them.
jgerry
10-23-2008, 01:50 PM
I do believe as an investment, spending $150K to make your candidate look good is probably smart. Doing it in violation of election law, and when you're trying desperately to show you're running a populist campaign... Probably not smart.
I do think she brings in plenty more $$ than they've spent on clothes. How many people have donated to the RNC because they like Palin? Probably a lot.
busyba
10-23-2008, 01:51 PM
There are two seperate questions:
A) is it illegal?
2) is it utterly inconsistent with their message
"A" is potentially arguable in either direction. It looks shady on its face, but there is undoubtedly a loophole with enough wiggle room in it that the RNC can plausibly find cover.
As for "2" on the other hand, as far as I can tell, there's no debate to be had. They're caught dead to rights on that point.
pseudonym
10-23-2008, 02:08 PM
Do other candidates get their campaigns to pay for their clothes? Has Joe Biden sent the DNC a bill for $150K from Jos A Bank or something?
Is Biden making appearances that raise millions for the DNC? If so he could probably get reimbursed for expenses.
Of course he does. They're called fundraisers.
My question is, does he get reimbursed for his clothes? Does anyone but Palin?
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 02:21 PM
It's also not relevant as to whether spending $150,000 in less than 3 months on clothing, while at the same time professing to be not "elite" and not "out-of-touch" with "real americans" is completely ridiculous or not.I suppose it depends what those "real americans" would do if their boss said you need to get designer clothes and accessories to do your job - take the day off and the company credit card and go down to Fifth Avenue - and get some stuff for your family while you are at it.
Whether or not when they got back home with the booty they would tell their partner that the boss was out of his tree is another matter.
Or to put it another way of all the people on the stage in this election I think the most "in-touch" "real American" is Michelle Obama. And her spending $900 a time on frocks does not detract from that one iota.
Why are people acting like she has two choices?
1. Standard Alaskan hockey mom duds
2. $150,000 in Neiman Marcus & Saks high end clothing
If she spent $15,000 would anybody notice the difference?
It's not the fact she's getting nice clothes to wear during fundraisers and the like. It's that it's $150,000 worth.
There's no way you can tell me that 10% of that wouldn't have been just as good.
And $200 for baby clothes and $5,000 for men's clothes.
Maybe the clothes just showed up on her doorstep and she had no idea.
But when you add it to her shenanigans in Alaska, it fits a pattern where she seems like she doesn't have to follow any rules.
5 nights in a $700 NY hotel room billed to Alaska for a 4 hour conference?
-smak-
Skanter
10-23-2008, 03:04 PM
It's also not relevant as to whether spending $150,000 in less than 3 months on clothing, while at the same time professing to be not "elite" and not "out-of-touch" with "real americans" is completely ridiculous or not.I suppose it depends what those "real americans" would do if their boss said you need to get designer clothes and accessories to do your job - take the day off and the company credit card and go down to Fifth Avenue - and get some stuff for your family while you are at it.
Except, that's not what happens in the real world. Most people with white-collar jobs that require "nice clothes" have to spend out of their own pockets, and it is a financial burden. Most people are forced to look for bargains or discount houses, not Sak's or Neiman Marcus.
Skanter
10-23-2008, 03:07 PM
From the commie, radical left rag, NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23palin.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=palin&st=cse&oref=slogin
Sarah Palin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/sarah_palin/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s wardrobe joined the ranks of symbolic political excess on Wednesday, alongside John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s multiple houses and John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s $400 haircut, as Republicans expressed fear that weeks of tailoring Ms. Palin as an average “hockey mom” would fray amid revelations that the Republican Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) outfitted her with expensive clothing from high-end stores...
Or to put it another way of all the people on the stage in this election I think the most "in-touch" "real American" is Michelle Obama. And her spending $900 a time on frocks does not detract from that one iota.Michelle Obama isn't out selling herself every day as Jill-Sixpack Just-Plain-Folks Small-Town Hockey-Mom. Michelle Obama sells herself as a girl from a South Chicago blue-collar family who worked her way up to being an educated and successful professional woman.
$900 frocks aren't atypical for educated and successful professional women. True?
$15K designer suits are incredibly atypical for Jill-Sixpack Just-Plain-Folks Small-Town Hockey-Moms. Also true?
The problem ain't the money. The problem is the discontinuity between rhetoric and raiment. The enormous cost of Cindy McCain's outfit at the RNC may have gotten some play on lefty blogs, but in the end it wasn't much of a story anywhere else - perhaps because Cindy McCain isn't out selling herself as Jill Just-Plain-Folks etc, she's perfectly comfortable in her real role of a wealthy woman.
pseudonym
10-23-2008, 03:25 PM
Keep in mind, the people who Palin is trying to reach out to, who she needs to identify with her, live in houses that cost less than what she spent on clothes in a weekend, and they're having a hard time keeping up with the mortgage on them. It will take them years just to earn $150K, and they won't spend that much on clothing for themselves in their entire lives.
It's easy to forget, in this age of $700 billion bailouts, that $150,000 is a lot of money to the vast, vast majority of Americans. To drop that much money (someone else's money) at Saks in a day or two, then play up your connection to the hardworking, average small town American, to the point of looking down your nose at the elites in the "unpatriotic" parts of the country (probably the same parts of the country where she went shopping) really is pretty galling.
busyba
10-23-2008, 03:26 PM
The problem is the discontinuity between rhetoric and raiment.
I had to look that up. :)
The problem is the discontinuity between rhetoric and raiment.
I had to look that up. :)
Dude, you need to read more. I'm not willing to give up the odd alliteration just to keep from confusing you. :)
busyba
10-23-2008, 03:35 PM
The problem is the discontinuity between rhetoric and raiment.
I had to look that up. :)
Dude, you need to read more.
I really do. So write more. :)
I'm not willing to give up the odd alliteration just to keep from confusing you. :)
As well you shouldn't. That rocked!
I'll almost certainly steal it should the opportunity arise. ;)
mabes
10-23-2008, 03:39 PM
5 nights in a $700 NY hotel room billed to Alaska for a 4 hour conference?
-smak-
That's less than the previous governor would have spent. This makes her a reformer.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 04:12 PM
Michelle Obama isn't out selling herself every day as Jill-Sixpack Just-Plain-Folks Small-Town Hockey-Mom. Michelle Obama sells herself as a girl from a South Chicago blue-collar family who worked her way up to being an educated and successful professional woman.
$900 frocks aren't atypical for educated and successful professional women. True?Undoubtedly she is a educated and successful professional women.
But as I remember her early campaign speeches / town hall meets she sold herself (rightly) as as a girl from a South Chicago blue-collar family who took decades to pay off her student loans.
And as I remember her early campaign speeches she sold herself (rightly) as a person who rejected the sort of professions that would enable her to afford $900 frocks and called upon young people to do the same.
Or to put it another way - most educated and very successful professional women I know do not spend $900 on a frock (or if they do after paying for it they swap the price tag for a cheaper one).
And for the record courtesy of video streaming and CNN I watched and listened to at least three of her events each lasting at least 20 minutes.
Undoubtedly she is a educated and successful professional women.
But as I remember her early campaign speeches / town hall meets she sold herself (rightly) as as a girl from a South Chicago blue-collar family who took decades to pay off her student loans. Which is not incompatible with being an educated and successful professional woman.
And as I remember her early campaign speeches she sold herself (rightly) as a person who rejected the sort of professions that would enable her to afford $900 frocks and called upon young people to do the same. I'd have to see the speeches. She certainly hasn't rejected professions than enable her to afford $900 frocks.
Or to put it another way - most educated and very successful professional women I know do not spend $900 on a frock (or if they do after paying for it they swap the price tag for a cheaper one).Are they educated and professional women who earn the equivalent of about $325K a year, not counting their husband's income (and aren't blowing 2/3rds of it trying to rent a flat in London?)
And for the record courtesy of video streaming and CNN I watched and listened to at least three of her events each lasting at least 20 minutes.Did she at any time claim current demographic kinship with Joe Sixpack? Or did she do her usual "blue-collar girl who Made It"?
grondramb
10-23-2008, 04:30 PM
The Republican base is bifurcated -the ability to dress both up and down is useful. If a candidate comes in with only one - they need to learn the other.
mabes
10-23-2008, 04:45 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/gop-strategist-on-palins_n_137226.html
Oh good lord.
Republican strategist Brad Blakeman, responding to a question about how John McCain could square his opposition to wasteful spending with the RNC shelling out over $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin, said that the real outrage is Barack Obama "taking a 767 campaign plane to go visit Grandma." This is the same grandmother who raised Obama and who is very seriously ill. Blakeman continued, "Forget about the energy that is wasted, what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a private trip when this guy should be humping his bags on a commercial plane or taking a smaller plane. Taking a 767 of campaign money from people who could least afford it is more of an outrage in my opinion." Anchor David Schuster, laughing, replied, "That is one of the most valiant tries I have ever seen in this entire debate about Sarah Palin's clothing allowance."
I can't decide, but I think I would use another word than "valiant".
grondramb
10-23-2008, 04:49 PM
Surely the campaign didn't pay to fly Obama to Hawaii on a non-campaign trip. He will probably reimburse the campaign even if they did pay for initially.
pseudonym
10-23-2008, 04:52 PM
this guy should be humping his bags on a commercial plane or taking a smaller plane.
I'm sure the Secret Service would love to have Obama flying coach to Hawaii.
Marco
10-23-2008, 04:54 PM
Republican strategist Brad Blakeman, responding to a question about how John McCain could square his opposition to wasteful spending with the RNC shelling out over $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin, said that the real outrage is Barack Obama "taking a 767 campaign plane to go visit Grandma."
Nominee for Immense Tool Of The Week. :tickedoff:
mabes
10-23-2008, 04:54 PM
Surely the campaign didn't pay to fly Obama to Hawaii on a non-campaign trip. He will probably reimburse the campaign even if they did pay for initially.
I don't know the details, my point was the disgusting attempt to equate his trip with money spent on clothing.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 05:08 PM
I'd have to see the speeches. She certainly hasn't rejected professions than enable her to afford $900 frocks.Well, much as I like her I must admit you do have to be resonably alert to detect the shifting tenses in her speeches, that what she is suggesting that young people do is not the same as what she is currently doing.We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did . . . then your salaries respond" (my emphasis).
Very roughly speaking U.S. nurses get paid more than U.K. nurses, U.K. teachers get paid more than U.S. teachers and social workers get paid all sort of things. But I think for all of them a $900 frock would mean giving up on a more usual 'extravagance' such as a second foreign holiday etc.
busyba
10-23-2008, 05:10 PM
this guy should be humping his bags on a commercial plane or taking a smaller plane.
I'm sure the Secret Service would love to have Obama flying coach to Hawaii.
I'm also sure that the FAA might not be too thrilled with him performing sex acts upon luggage on a public aircraft. :)
Republican strategist Brad Blakeman, responding to a question about how John McCain could square his opposition to wasteful spending with the RNC shelling out over $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin, said that the real outrage is Barack Obama "taking a 767 campaign plane to go visit Grandma."
Nominee for Immense Tool Of The Week. :tickedoff:
I think it's time to break out the new smak pretzel scale.
This douchebag gets 5 out of 5 pretzel's for tying himself into a pretzel to defend Sarah Palin screwups.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpg http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpghttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpghttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpghttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpg
busyba
10-23-2008, 05:18 PM
Republican strategist Brad Blakeman, responding to a question about how John McCain could square his opposition to wasteful spending with the RNC shelling out over $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin, said that the real outrage is Barack Obama "taking a 767 campaign plane to go visit Grandma."
Nominee for Immense Tool Of The Week. :tickedoff:
I think it's time to break out the new smak pretzel scale.
This douchebag gets 5 out of 5 pretzel's for tying himself into a pretzel to defend Sarah Palin screwups.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpg http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpghttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpghttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpghttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/smakson/pretzel.jpg
If Brad Blakeman were a member of this board, Daniel would have had to donate the full $2300 limit to the Obama campaign for that one. :)
He's a bigger Pfuckhead than Pfotenhauer. :D
timesamillion
10-23-2008, 05:19 PM
Re: the "$900 :shocked:" frocks of Michelle Obama
Look, $900 is NOTHING. It's a middle tier suit from Bloomingdales. It's a prom dress. It's a crappy wedding dress. It's nothing. She wore a $148 dress on the View.
$150k for 2 months worth of clothes is absolutely insane. It's a different $2000 outfit (suit, shoes, jewelry, etc..) EVERY DAY for the ENTIRE campaign since she was nominated. Not that I give a rat's ass, but the attempts to spin it are laughable.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 05:23 PM
I'm sure the Secret Service would love to have Obama flying coach to Hawaii.Yep, why would the Secret Service want to fly coach when they could be flying on the big comfortable chairs up front if all they have got to do is whisper 'security'. Not only that if they fly coach they could end up sitting across the aisle from Bill Gates.
Uther
10-23-2008, 05:26 PM
pgogborn just wants to see Michelle Obama defrocked.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 05:26 PM
$150k for 3 months worth of clothes is absolutely insane. It's a different $2000 outfit (suit, shoes, jewelry, etc..) EVERY DAY for the ENTIRE campaign since she was nominated. Not that I give a rat's ass, but the attempts to spin it are laughable.But as she hasn't worn a different $2000 outfit EVERY DAY for the ENTIRE campaign since she was nominated perhaps the statistics need a slight tweak.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 05:30 PM
pgogborn just wants to see Michelle Obama defrocked.I think it is more the case I want Palin to keep her frock on (ditto for her husband keeping his suit on).
timesamillion
10-23-2008, 05:34 PM
$150k for 2 months worth of clothes is absolutely insane. It's a different $2000 outfit (suit, shoes, jewelry, etc..) EVERY DAY for the ENTIRE campaign since she was nominated. Not that I give a rat's ass, but the attempts to spin it are laughable.But as she hasn't worn a different $2000 outfit EVERY DAY for the ENTIRE campaign since she was nominated perhaps the statistics need a slight tweak.
9/4 - 11/4 = 61 days. That's:
60 outfits at $2500 each (different outfit every day of the campaign)
30 outfits at $5000 each (different outfit every other day)
15 outfits at $10000 each (different outfit every 4 days)
7 outfits at $21428 each (different outfit each day of the week)
So which is it ? And if she isn't wearing $150,000 worth of clothes on the trail, where the hell did it go ? Todd's new snowmobile ? G-strings made of spun gold ?
(and I fixed my 3 vs. 2 month error)
busyba
10-23-2008, 05:46 PM
pgogborn just wants to see Michelle Obama defrocked.I think it is more the case I want Palin to keep her frock on (ditto for her husband keeping his suit on).
I'm actually looking forward to the inevitable Playboy spread once Palin's political career crashes and burns sometime around 11/5.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 05:48 PM
So which is it ? And if she isn't wearing $150,000 worth of clothes on the trail, where the hell did it go ? Todd's new snowmobileAt a complete guess some of ir for Todd's suits rather than snowmobile, how much I don't know I haven't even got a guess - as I previously alluded to it seems overall people prefer to spend more time on how much frocks cost rather than men's suits.
pgogborn
10-23-2008, 05:51 PM
pgogborn just wants to see Michelle Obama defrocked.I think it is more the case I want Palin to keep her frock on (ditto for her husband keeping his suit on).
I'm actually looking forward to the inevitable Playboy spread once Palin's political career crashes and burns sometime around 11/5.As an aside have you come across the photo chopped picture of Palin holding a gun wearing a Wonder Woman bikini?
busyba
10-23-2008, 05:53 PM
I think it is more the case I want Palin to keep her frock on (ditto for her husband keeping his suit on).
I'm actually looking forward to the inevitable Playboy spread once Palin's political career crashes and burns sometime around 11/5.As an aside have you come across the photo chopped picture of Palin holding a gun wearing a Wonder Woman bikini?
Yes, I've seen it.
Not bad, but also not her.
It gets weirder:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/wardrobe-mysteries-linger/
About that wardrobe …
There are still aspects of the Republican National Committee’s shopping sprees on behalf of Gov. Sarah Palin and her family that are murky.
Some of the fashion experts consulted Wednesday, for instance, about the $150,000 in purchases that appeared on Federal Election Commission records were puzzled by where all of that money had gone, given what they had seen of Ms. Palin’s wardrobe.
Consider also the $4,902.45 charge at Atelier New York, a high-end men’s store, presumably for Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, the famous First Dude.
Karlo Steel, an owner there, said he had gone through the store’s receipts for September, twice, and found no sales that matched that amount, nor any combination of sales that added up to the total. Because the store carries aggressively directional men’s wear, he caters to a small clientèle and knows most of his customers by name, as well as the history of their purchases.
When The Caucus called Mr. Steel back to ask him to also check August sales just in case, Mr. Steel said he found one purchase that came close to the amount in the campaign finance reports but said that he knew who that customer was and it certainly was not Mr. Palin. Neither was it Jeff Larson, the Republican consultant who showed up in campaign finance records as the one who footed the initial bill before being reimbursed by the R.N.C.
The store carries expensive cut-up T-shirts and tricky suits from avant-garde designers, like Raf Simons, Yohji Yamamoto and Ann Demeulemeester, none of whom typically create beltway-appropriate attire.
“We have no recollection of that sale and no idea what they are talking about,” Mr. Steel said.
Now it makes you wonder and remember how the payments were made by their robocaller...
-smak-
Now it makes you wonder and remember how the payments were made by their robocaller...A little expense-padding going on by Mr. Robocall, perhaps? Same thought I had.
I wonder if we'll see this offered up as explanation by the McCain campaign. "We didn't REALLY spend $150K on outfitting the Palins, some of that turns out to be fraud by one of our people!"
(and somebody help me out, what is "aggressively directional men’s wear"?)
pseudonym
10-23-2008, 07:53 PM
(and somebody help me out, what is "aggressively directional men’s wear"?)
http://web.mac.com/ateliernewyork/iWeb/Site/YOHJI%20YAMAMOTO%20FW%202008_files/IMG_8141.jpg
What, you can't picture Todd Palin in one of these?
(and somebody help me out, what is "aggressively directional men’s wear"?)
http://www.platytude.com/images/raf_simons.jpg
Uther
10-23-2008, 08:21 PM
WTF?
QueenBee
10-23-2008, 08:49 PM
Maybe they should spend less on clothes and more on tutors.
grondramb
10-23-2008, 08:52 PM
Maybe they should spend less on clothes and more on tutors.
Some improvements take more time than others...
Ah. Aggressively directional menswear means "makes you look like a David Byrne video".
DMHinCO
10-24-2008, 01:05 AM
Aggressively directional? Does that mean "DOWN, BITCH!"
evizzle
10-24-2008, 01:11 AM
It gets weirder:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/wardrobe-mysteries-linger/
About that wardrobe …
There are still aspects of the Republican National Committee’s shopping sprees on behalf of Gov. Sarah Palin and her family that are murky.
Some of the fashion experts consulted Wednesday, for instance, about the $150,000 in purchases that appeared on Federal Election Commission records were puzzled by where all of that money had gone, given what they had seen of Ms. Palin’s wardrobe.
Consider also the $4,902.45 charge at Atelier New York, a high-end men’s store, presumably for Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, the famous First Dude.
Karlo Steel, an owner there, said he had gone through the store’s receipts for September, twice, and found no sales that matched that amount, nor any combination of sales that added up to the total. Because the store carries aggressively directional men’s wear, he caters to a small clientèle and knows most of his customers by name, as well as the history of their purchases.
When The Caucus called Mr. Steel back to ask him to also check August sales just in case, Mr. Steel said he found one purchase that came close to the amount in the campaign finance reports but said that he knew who that customer was and it certainly was not Mr. Palin. Neither was it Jeff Larson, the Republican consultant who showed up in campaign finance records as the one who footed the initial bill before being reimbursed by the R.N.C.
The store carries expensive cut-up T-shirts and tricky suits from avant-garde designers, like Raf Simons, Yohji Yamamoto and Ann Demeulemeester, none of whom typically create beltway-appropriate attire.
“We have no recollection of that sale and no idea what they are talking about,” Mr. Steel said.
I find this to be interesting...
Who was the highest paid McCain staffer in the first 2 weeks of October.
Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist. $22,800 for 2 weeks.
-smak-
Who was the highest paid McCain staffer in the first 2 weeks of October.
Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist. $22,800 for 2 weeks.On the plus side, they could ask Jill Makeup-Artist how she feels about Obama raising her taxes.
Who was the highest paid McCain staffer in the first 2 weeks of October.
Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist. $22,800 for 2 weeks.
-smak-
Sayah Palin's Hollywood Elitist Makeup Artist:
Amy Strozzi, who works on the reality show "So You Think You Can Dance" and has been Palin's traveling stylist, was paid $22,800, according to campaign finance reports for the first two weeks in October. In contrast, McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was paid $12,500, the report showed.
And, in the "can she get any more dumb?" dept., she is claiming that the 150,000 grand worth of clothes were only used for 3 days. Like she thinks that makes it better. Looks like Tem can adjust his formula to 50 grand a day........
"Those clothes are not my property. We had three days of using clothes that the RNC purchased," Palin told Fox News in an interview that aired Thursday night.
Cue folksy hockey mom:
"If people knew how Todd and I and our kids shop so frugally. My favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet. And my shoe store is called Shoe Fly in Juneau, Alaska. ... It's not, you know, Fifth Avenue-type of shopping."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27364669/
grondramb
10-24-2008, 08:38 PM
In the Atlanta paper they quoted McCain being asked if he was surprised about Palin's $150K on clothes - he said "Nothing surprises me" - sounds like maybe he's over Palin.
I'll bet you deep down they equally think the other one is the anchor.
-smak-
keirgrey
10-24-2008, 08:44 PM
In the Atlanta paper they quoted McCain being asked if he was surprised about Palin's $150K on clothes - he said "Nothing surprises me" - sounds like maybe he's over Palin.He may be realizing that she has effectively done a number on his presidential dreams.
grondramb
10-24-2008, 08:58 PM
Palin responds
Sarah Palin says clothing budget row is sexist
As watchdog files complaint, US vice-presidential candidate says men in her position would not face same scrutiny
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/24/sarah-palin-clothes
In a complaint filed to the US federal election commission, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) argued that Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans) violated campaign finance rules when they spent $150,000 (£96,000) on clothes for Palin and her family.
The purchases came from a joint account, controlled by both national Republicans and John McCain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/johnmccain)'s campaign. At issue is whether the "personal use" ban on buying clothes with campaign money – a reform promoted by McCain himself – applies to such joint accounts.
"It is ridiculous that [Republicans] would spend $150,000 to outfit a vice-presidential nominee and her family at any time, but it is more outrageous given the dire financial straits of so many Americans and the state of our economy," said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Crew and a federal prosecutor during the Clinton administration.
I wonder if they also object to Obama's spending?
DMHinCO
10-24-2008, 08:59 PM
My favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet.
You gotta be kidding. That's the name? Doesn't seem like a great name for an Alaskan store.
Anyway, at least it exists. http://www.outoftheclosetalaska.com
Sarah Palin says clothing budget row is sexist
As watchdog files complaint, US vice-presidential candidate says men in her position would not face same scrutinyActually she's almost right. If a male candidate was spending $150K on clothes in two months he'd be under MORE scrutiny.
Jobeth66
10-24-2008, 09:58 PM
Palin responds
Sarah Palin says clothing budget row is sexist
As watchdog files complaint, US vice-presidential candidate says men in her position would not face same scrutiny
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/24/sarah-palin-clothes
In a complaint filed to the US federal election commission, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) argued that Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans) violated campaign finance rules when they spent $150,000 (£96,000) on clothes for Palin and her family.
The purchases came from a joint account, controlled by both national Republicans and John McCain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/johnmccain)'s campaign. At issue is whether the "personal use" ban on buying clothes with campaign money – a reform promoted by McCain himself – applies to such joint accounts.
"It is ridiculous that [Republicans] would spend $150,000 to outfit a vice-presidential nominee and her family at any time, but it is more outrageous given the dire financial straits of so many Americans and the state of our economy," said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Crew and a federal prosecutor during the Clinton administration.
I wonder if they also object to Obama's spending?
Has Obama spent campaign money on clothing??
grondramb
10-24-2008, 10:03 PM
Has Obama spent campaign money on clothing??
Not that I know of but they object to spending since Americans are hurting and obama is spending far on the campaign than McCain.
Has Obama spent campaign money on clothing??
Not that I know of but they object to spending since Americans are hurting and obama is spending far on the campaign than McCain.
Who's they?
-smak-
Has Obama spent campaign money on clothing??
Not that I know of but they object to spending since Americans are hurting and obama is spending far on the campaign than McCain.Obama is spending his dough on commercials and campaign whatnots, though. People know commercials cost money, have an idea that a 30-sec ad spot can easily cost more than they make in a year.
That just doesn't have the same outrageousness as $15000 dresses. People know what dresses cost, and that's outrageous. If they've got somebody to remind them the way we've got pgogborn they'd know Michelle Obama manages to look cool and stylish in frocks that only cost $900 (or less, the getup she had on for The View was said to run only $150).
grondramb
10-24-2008, 10:20 PM
Has Obama spent campaign money on clothing??
Not that I know of but they object to spending since Americans are hurting and obama is spending far on the campaign than McCain.
Who's they?
-smak-
the watchdog group who appear to be upset about $150k one party spent on a marketing expense but not the hundreds of millions the other party is spending on marketing.
the watchdog group who appear to be upset about $150k one party spent on a marketing expense but not the hundreds of millions the other party is spending on marketing.If Obama was paying 10 or 100 times more than what he needed to for his "marketing", perhaps they'd complain.
Come on, tell me the RNC needed to spend $150K on outfitting Sarah Palin and that $15K couldn't have done almost indistinguishably as well.
Not that I know of but they object to spending since Americans are hurting and obama is spending far on the campaign than McCain.
Who's they?
-smak-
the watchdog group who appear to be upset about $150k one party spent on a marketing expense but not the hundreds of millions the other party is spending on marketing.
One might be illegal.
One is not illegal.
-smak-
murgatroyd
10-25-2008, 12:40 AM
"Those clothes are not my property. We had three days of using clothes that the RNC purchased," Palin told Fox News in an interview that aired Thursday night. Cue folksy hockey mom:
"If people knew how Todd and I and our kids shop so frugally. My favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet. And my shoe store is called Shoe Fly in Juneau, Alaska. ... It's not, you know, Fifth Avenue-type of shopping."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27364669/
<FX: picks up jaw from floor>
Obviously not the same folks as the Out of the Closet I know:
http://www.outofthecloset.org/locations.html
Who we are
Out of the Closet, the world's most fabulous thrift store, is a chain of thrift stores in Northern and Southern California owned and operated by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (http://www.aidshealth.org/) (AHF), the largest specialized provider of cutting-edge medicine and advocacy regardless of ability to pay.
Jan
grondramb
10-25-2008, 12:54 AM
If Obama was paying 10 or 100 times more than what he needed to for his "marketing", perhaps they'd complain.
If Obama over paid for rent on one of his dozens of offices or or for 100k of his hundred million of TV time I doubt it would be a big issue.
Come on, tell me the RNC needed to spend $150K on outfitting Sarah Palin and that $15K couldn't have done almost indistinguishably as well.
I would think they could have.
aindik
10-25-2008, 01:31 AM
That just doesn't have the same outrageousness as $15000 dresses. People know what dresses cost, and that's outrageous. If they've got somebody to remind them the way we've got pgogborn they'd know Michelle Obama manages to look cool and stylish in frocks that only cost $900 (or less, the getup she had on for The View was said to run only $150).
This is not in any way a defense of $15,000 dresses and is completely beside the point, but, IMHO, Michelle Obama does not manage to look stylish. My wife and I both think that she dresses like she's back in the 80s.
Skanter
10-25-2008, 02:09 AM
That just doesn't have the same outrageousness as $15000 dresses. People know what dresses cost, and that's outrageous. If they've got somebody to remind them the way we've got pgogborn they'd know Michelle Obama manages to look cool and stylish in frocks that only cost $900 (or less, the getup she had on for The View was said to run only $150).
This is not in any way a defense of $15,000 dresses and is completely beside the point, but, IMHO, Michelle Obama does not manage to look stylish. My wife and I both think that she dresses like she's back in the 80s.
Maybe "looking stylish" is not the number one criterion the American people have for judging a person's intelligence and character.
grondramb
10-25-2008, 02:11 AM
Maybe "looking stylish" is not the number one criteria the American people have for judging a person's intelligence and character.
Its not - but its helps with fund raising in Republican circles.
"Those clothes are not my property. We had three days of using clothes that the RNC purchased," Palin told Fox News in an interview that aired Thursday night. Cue folksy hockey mom:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27364669/
<FX: picks up jaw from floor>
Obviously not the same folks as the Out of the Closet I know:
http://www.outofthecloset.org/locations.html
Who we are
Out of the Closet, the world's most fabulous thrift store, is a chain of thrift stores in Northern and Southern California owned and operated by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (http://www.aidshealth.org/) (AHF), the largest specialized provider of cutting-edge medicine and advocacy regardless of ability to pay.
Jan
I thought the same thing too when I first read the article - we have tons of Out of the Closets here in L.A. and West Hollywood (in fact, I think they may have originated here) but then I figured that it was prolly not the same thing in Alaska.
Whenever I have used stuff to donate, it goes to them.
aindik
10-25-2008, 02:17 AM
That just doesn't have the same outrageousness as $15000 dresses. People know what dresses cost, and that's outrageous. If they've got somebody to remind them the way we've got pgogborn they'd know Michelle Obama manages to look cool and stylish in frocks that only cost $900 (or less, the getup she had on for The View was said to run only $150).
This is not in any way a defense of $15,000 dresses and is completely beside the point, but, IMHO, Michelle Obama does not manage to look stylish. My wife and I both think that she dresses like she's back in the 80s.
Maybe "looking stylish" is not the number one criteria the American people have for judging a person's intelligence and character.
Did I say it was?
All I said was, she doesn't look stylish. That says nothing about her intelligence or her character. (Also, note, she's not running for anything). (Furthermore, note, that just because something is not "the number one criteria (sic)" doesn't mean it's not on the list).
Skanter
10-25-2008, 03:21 AM
This is not in any way a defense of $15,000 dresses and is completely beside the point, but, IMHO, Michelle Obama does not manage to look stylish. My wife and I both think that she dresses like she's back in the 80s.
Maybe "looking stylish" is not the number one criterion the American people have for judging a person's intelligence and character.
Did I say it was?
All I said was, she doesn't look stylish. That says nothing about her intelligence or her character. (Also, note, she's not running for anything). (Furthermore, note, that just because something is not "the number one criterion" doesn't mean it's not on the list).
You did bring up the point, for some reason unbeknownst to me, that you thought that she did not "look stylish". My point was that perhaps, in these times (wars, economic crisis) people don't care much about candidates or their wives "stylishness", but what they say and do which will more indicate their character then will their clothes.
IOW, if you say "I don't like Obama's tie", I'll probably say - "who gives a shit!";)
Maybe "looking stylish" is not the number one criteria the American people have for judging a person's intelligence and character.
Its not - but its helps with fund raising in Republican circles.
Which says a lot about them doesn't it.
-smak-
If Obama over paid for rent on one of his dozens of offices or or for 100k of his hundred million of TV time I doubt it would be a big issue.Overpaid by a factor of 10, or 100? It obviously would be. The McCain campaign would be dry-humpin' that issue all over every news outlet they could get an apparatchik on, and you know it.
This is not in any way a defense of $15,000 dresses and is completely beside the point, but, IMHO, Michelle Obama does not manage to look stylish. My wife and I both think that she dresses like she's back in the 80s.I honestly would not know, my idea of "style" is wearing a polo shirt with a collar with my jeans, and da wife wears dresses pretty much just for our anniversary dinners, weddings and funerals. But they's all kinds of people out there calling Michelle Obama the most stylish First Lady since Jackie Kennedy, I figured they couldn't be as clueless as me. Maybe they're just "in the tank". :)
Jobeth66
10-25-2008, 10:37 AM
Not that I know of but they object to spending since Americans are hurting and obama is spending far on the campaign than McCain.
Who's they?
-smak-
the watchdog group who appear to be upset about $150k one party spent on a marketing expense but not the hundreds of millions the other party is spending on marketing.
They're a watchdog group that's keeping an eye on who might be breaking the law.
Obama spending millions on legitimate campaign expenses - no matter how frivolous and insane some might think that is - isn't illegal.
Palin getting 150k work of personal items through the use of campaign funds may be illegal.
HUGE difference.
grondramb
10-25-2008, 02:05 PM
They're a watchdog group that's keeping an eye on who might be breaking the law.
Obama spending millions on legitimate campaign expenses - no matter how frivolous and insane some might think that is - isn't illegal.
Palin getting 150k work of personal items through the use of campaign funds may be illegal.
HUGE difference.
That is the important difference. And if the clothes are a violation they need to correct it they can and/or pay the price if they can't or its too late.
but the righteous indignation about the amount of money is fabricated for political reasons unless its also includes attacking Obama for spending much more money on marketing for this, IMO.
That is the important difference. And if the clothes are a violation they need to correct it they can and/or pay the price if they can't or its too late.
but the righteous indignation about the amount of money is fabricated for political reasons unless its also includes attacking Obama for spending much more money on marketing for this, IMO.Have you somehow failed to notice that spending an enormously disproportionate amount on something people consider trivial in a campaign (clothes) isn't the same thing, outrageous-wise, as spending on things people consider typical and important for a campaign (political commercials, etc)?
Calling them both "marketing" doesn't change that.
People know campaigns have gotta buy TV ads, conduct polls, hold events, etc. They don't think candidates need to be decked out in ultra-expensive fancy duds to do it (because they don't).
If that story of Michelle Obama ordering huge expensive meals of lobster and caviar and champagne while lounging at the ritzy high-class Waldorf-Astoria Hotel hadn't turned out to be a fabrication, would you be defending the Obama campaign spending money on such meals by saying, hey, the McCain campaign has food-related expenditures also?
grondramb
10-25-2008, 03:00 PM
If that story of Michelle Obama ordering huge expensive meals of lobster and caviar and champagne while lounging at the ritzy high-class Waldorf-Astoria Hotel hadn't turned out to be a fabrication, would you be defending the Obama campaign spending money on such meals by saying, hey, the McCain campaign has food-related expenditures also?
Had I even bothered to address it I probably would have said she is a wealthy attorney probably dining at with wealthy donors or supports plus working constantly - is it a surprise if she stays at a nice hotel and orders good food?
Had I even bothered to address it I probably would have said she is a wealthy attorney probably dining at with wealthy donors or supports plus working constantly - is it a surprise if she stays at a nice hotel and orders good food?It would be if all those $10 and $20 campaign donations millions of people have been sending in to the campaign were being spent on it, yeah.
Now I don't expect Michelle Obama to wear dungarees and stay at a Motel 6, but there is such a thing as excess. And lobster/caviar/champagne at the Waldorf-Astoria (via room service was the myth, btw, not dining with big donors) would be such an excess.
There'd be a huge fuss, and the McCain campaign would be whoopping up a storm about "elitism". Tell me you doubt that. And Michelle Obama's not even selling herself daily as a Just-Plain-Folks Small-Towny Hockey-Mom.
grondramb
10-25-2008, 04:00 PM
There'd be a huge fuss, and the McCain campaign would be whoopping up a storm about "elitism". Tell me you doubt that. And Michelle Obama's not even selling herself daily as a Just-Plain-Folks Small-Towny Hockey-Mom.
I'm sure you are right that some republicans would try to make a fuss (and although I missed the "incident" I don't doubt you that they tried to make it an incident.)
That would not, however, have included me.
Edit: And BTW, I got asked for an opinion to today on whether it was too extra-biblical to consider theologically whether the anti-Christ would even have a birth certificate at all, even if the beast he were born to was, in fact, in Hawaii - so I'm not sure the "that's what 'they' would do" is the standard y'all want to use.
Edit: And BTW, I got asked for an opinion to today on whether it was too extra-biblical to consider theologically whether the anti-Christ would even have a birth certificate at all, even if the beast he were born to was, in fact, in Hawaii - so I'm not sure the "that's what 'they' would do" is the standard y'all want to use.I can separate the right from the kooks, thanks, as WFB is claimed to say he spent his life trying to do.
Unlike some folks, I don't consider what random nobody internet yahoos do to be "tracable directly to McCain". :)
Fofer
10-25-2008, 08:34 PM
whether it was too extra-biblical to consider theologically whether the anti-Christ would even have a birth certificate at all, even if the beast he were born to was, in fact, in Hawaii
holy crap!
whether it was too extra-biblical to consider theologically whether the anti-Christ would even have a birth certificate at all, even if the beast he were born to was, in fact, in Hawaii
holy crap!
Who do you need to give unworthy praise to for getting you to L.A.?
-smak-
murgatroyd
10-27-2008, 02:23 PM
I wanted to get back to a couple of previous comments:
Nice to see the old habit of discussing a females candidates clothes and how much she spends on them more so than male candidates is alive and well.
I know how much Edwards hair cost - how much did his suits cost?I doubt they cost what a women's outfit does. It's not the media, it's genders that make the difference.
Men aren't expected by our society to care a lot about what they look like. So men just aren't into clothes as much as women are, so a designer woman's outfit like Cindy McCain wore to the RNC - one that costs more than most people's houses - is generally going to outstrip what a quality man's suit costs.
The problem with women's clothes is not so much that they cost more than men's clothes. Whatever look you choose, you can find it at several different price points.
The big difference is that men can get away with wearing a suit, and wearing the same suit more often, simply by changing up the look with a different shirt and tie -- whereas women are expected to show more variety in their looks. They can't just get (say) a nice navy suit or jacket-and-dress outfit and wear it over and over again. People will notice and comment. To change things up, they have to have more pieces to work with than a man does. (And for the working woman who is actually paying for her wardrobe, it also costs more to dry-clean women's clothing, too -- and all this on what is usually a smaller salary. But I digress.)
If the campaign that drafted you had a swarm of people at your beck and call shuffling you here/there/everywhere and scripting out your wardrobe and items, you'd purposely go against what they give you/say to wear and micromanage that part of the campaign?
Now that I have followed the links given on the iVillage story I posted above, I can address this question properly.
In Tim Gunn's book 'A Guide to Quality, Taste and Style' he talks about having to upgrade his wardrobe when he was made the Chair of the Department of Fashion Design at Parsons. One of the purchases he made initially was at Saks -- he got a black leather blazer made by Hugo Boss, that cost $800. He says that he felt faint afterwards, because previously that had been his clothing budget for an entire year. BUT -- he shopped some more and went to Banana Republic, and found a similar leather blazer for $400 (less 20% because he opened an account) -- so he bought that instead, and returned the $800 blazer.
If you assume that part of my campaign was to give variants of the 'Checkers' speech with references to wearing a 'good Republican cloth coat' rather than a fur, then I would certainly want to do the same thing Tim did, by looking at the high-fashion lines and then actually purchasing at the lower price point.
You may think it was micro-managing if I told my stylists to take back the $2500 Valentino jacket, and to find that look at a lower price point. But someone should have told her stylists to get just a few high-end outfits to wear to the high-roller fund-raiser events, and to pick the outfits for the 'just plain folks' speeches from the lower price points.
Maybe they did that -- they did get some stuff from Macys -- but it still seems surreal that someone could accept a $2500 jacket, and then go out to an audience who may have spent less than that on a car, and say that she is just plain folks like them.
It's bad enough that they spent $2500 on a jacket for Sarah Palin -- they used campaign contributions to buy it, she's running on a ticket with the fellow who tried to curb campaign spending abuses, and they're taking public money to fund their campaign.
I don't get where the same party gets off criticizing John Edwards for spending $300 of his own money on a haircut.
If Republicans want to send the message that their party believes in being fiscally responsible with other people's money, how can you send that message by having a candidate walking around in a $2500 blazer -- not one that she purchased for herself, but one that the party bought for her with other people's money?
Jan
raebyddet
11-05-2008, 04:43 PM
Ouch this is going to get uglier now:
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family--clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/1
grondramb
11-05-2008, 04:46 PM
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
Kinda like the bonuses the leaders of AIG got.
-smak-
Agatha
11-05-2008, 04:57 PM
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
Well, she was probably always going to keep them - at least that was probably her plan until she found out about the tax implications as well as the legal ones.
busyba
11-05-2008, 05:01 PM
An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,"
:2funny:
and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
I doubt it. They'll just quietly sweep it under the rug and keep any actions they do "in-house".
So when she said she had nothing to do with it and the RNC just bought stuff for her, she was lying?
grondramb
11-05-2008, 05:04 PM
So when she said she had nothing to do with it and the RNC just bought stuff for her, she was lying?
Well sounds like we have a source that would contradict such a statement.
I doubt it. They'll just quietly sweep it under the rug and keep any actions they do "in-house".Don't a campaign's books have to be publicly audited, though? To make sure no campaign finance laws (like buying clothes, for example) aren't being broken?
So when she said she had nothing to do with it and the RNC just bought stuff for her, she was lying?
Well sounds like we have a source that would contradict such a statement.Would that source be Palin, or a Palin spokespersonage?
Eh. It'll come out when they go over the books.
grondramb
11-05-2008, 05:07 PM
I meant the angry aide.
busyba
11-05-2008, 05:08 PM
So when she said she had nothing to do with it and the RNC just bought stuff for her, she was lying?
Palin? Lying? I'm shocked. :2funny:
I'm curious about the "lost clothes." :)
pseudonym
11-05-2008, 05:18 PM
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
$150K+ is a small bonus?
Agatha
11-05-2008, 05:18 PM
I'm curious about the "lost clothes." :)
It's probably suits of Todd's or other gear that got stuffed in with his regular stuff - stuff that he can't figure out which is which. Either that, or it's just stuff he doesn't want to give up, so it's 'lost'. :)
mbklein
11-05-2008, 05:20 PM
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
Is this another one of those "jokes" your wife warned you not to make?
grondramb
11-05-2008, 05:20 PM
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
$150K+ is a small bonus?
Compared to what she put up with - quite small..
Michael
11-05-2008, 05:22 PM
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
$150K+ is a small bonus?
Compared to what she put up with - quite small..
You realize that you lose credibility every time you post something like this right?
grondramb
11-05-2008, 05:25 PM
$150K+ is a small bonus?
Compared to what she put up with - quite small..
You realize that you lose credibility every time you post something like this right?
What I'm really getting is that either there are some irony impaired people here or else my sense of humor is not as good as I think it is...
Edit: My wife says if I refuse to stop trying to be funny I have to at least learn to be good with smileys....
Compared to what she put up with - quite small..
You realize that you lose credibility every time you post something like this right?
What I'm really getting is that either there are some irony impaired people here or else my sense of humor is not as good as I think it is...
Edit: My wife says if I refuse to stop trying to be funny I have to at least learn to be good with smileys....
How about neither.
Oh wait, now I understand the problem.
It was supposed to be..
"Mounting evidence Ayers wrote Obama's book :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D"
-smak-
Michael
11-05-2008, 05:30 PM
Compared to what she put up with - quite small..
You realize that you lose credibility every time you post something like this right?
What I'm really getting is that either there are some irony impaired people here or else my sense of humor is not as good as I think it is...
Edit: My wife says if I refuse to stop trying to be funny I have to at least learn to be good with smileys....
Yeah, you have to remember that sardonic wit doesn't translate well in written form. Your wife is most correct in saying that you need to properly placed emoticons. ;)
grondramb
11-05-2008, 05:46 PM
You realize that you lose credibility every time you post something like this right?
What I'm really getting is that either there are some irony impaired people here or else my sense of humor is not as good as I think it is...
Edit: My wife says if I refuse to stop trying to be funny I have to at least learn to be good with smileys....
How about neither.
Oh wait, now I understand the problem.
It was supposed to be..
"Mounting evidence Ayers wrote Obama's book :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D"
-smak-
Actualy I think I was skeptical because it didn't seem like Ayers knew Obama well enough to be his ghost writer.
But Palin's clothes are more than whether the President is close enough to a terrorist to use him as a ghost writer.
smak's post->http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/grondramb/smioleys/console.gif<-pale
So do we all agree she should just keep the clothes as a small bonus at this point?
$150K+ is a small bonus?
Compared to what she put up with - quite small..And what do we deserve for having her foisted upon us for two months?
I want a free hamburger at LEAST.
grondramb
11-05-2008, 06:15 PM
I want a free hamburger at LEAST.
That is the least you should get...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/grondramb/smioleys/headbang.gif
mbklein
11-05-2008, 06:18 PM
And what do we deserve for having her foisted upon us for two months?
I want a free hamburger at LEAST.
Mooseburger, man. Mooseburger.
grondramb
11-05-2008, 06:26 PM
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/grondramb/smioleys/moose.gif
timesamillion
11-05-2008, 09:01 PM
the hits just keep on comin' --- reporter Carl Cameron on O'Reilly Factor summarizing rifts between McCain and Palin. Sources are within the McCain campaign.
- problems w/ basic civics & government structure
- didn't know nations involved in NAFTA
- could not name all the countries in North America
- didn't understand that Africa is a continent and not a country- "is south africa just a part of the country of Africa"
- didn't understand idea of American Exceptionalism
- reufsed Katie Couric interview prep from Nicole Wallace, who had worked w/ K.C
- attacks staff after KC interview after they say questions were fair - "Hadn't been warned" or steered to other more friendly opportunities
- she started to crack a week ago; would throw tantrums after seeing press clippings each day
- she's a shopaholic
- Randy Schueneman fired for leaking info re: Palin problems
O'Reilly tries to say that people can be tutored and brought up to speed on things like government structure and continents and geography and things like that. Right. I can be brought up to speed on the dials in an F-16 but that doesn't mean I can fly the freaking plane. It's obvious they didn't even begin to vet her as a 30 minute convo could have shown how dim she was. They were obviously blind, stupid or desperate. Or a combination of the three.
Worth a new thread.
http://www.mainsquare.org/showthread.php?t=6395
-smak-
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.