bascule Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Yesterday reports came out that the GOP has spent $150,000 on outfits for Palin alone, a remark Palin called sexist. Today the New York Times reported that McCain's top staffer is... Palin's makeup artist, who was paid $22,000 for the first two weeks of October alone. Is any of this substantive, or is it just a bunch of mindless bluster? In my opinion it's indicative of how the McCain campaign has its priorities wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 a distraction really. When you consider she is a woman who is not a millionaire and was not a national figure, well I can see the need for clothes, etc. Expensive clothes though. Makes me wonder what other goodies all the candidates enjoy from campaign money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Really, Bascule, this is completely beyond the Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riogho Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 That's more than they spend on advertising in most states! The amazing thing is, it seems she is always wearing that same blind-your-eyes red outfit. PALIN POWER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Ok, I guess I'll copy and paste the obvious, which is conveniently located at the END of the article. Gee, you'd think that the accused's rebuttal would be right up front, but then you wouldn't be able to promote the damaging effect of rambling on about CREW and the dirty republicans before you read her response at the end. Palin said the clothes purchased were not in line with her family's personality and most of them were sitting unopened on her campaign plane. "The whole thing is just bad!" she said. "Oh' date=' if only people knew how frugal we are. It's kind of painful to be criticised for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported."[/quote'] This is how it was presented to me when I heard the story yesterday morning. That this stuff was provided, but mostly rejected by her and her family. However, I don't listen to CNN or MSNBC to get the left spinned version. This is just the latest in irrelevant childish, playground antics. The left loves this and will push and push this elementary school fodder but then crybaby over McCain calling them socialists and wealth redistributionists. It would be funny except that it's blatantly sexist and partisan - directly comes from the same place racism and prejudice comes from. It seems like the democrats, and really most of the left, are just absolutely pissed off because THEY didn't provide the woman candidate. They like the republicans wearing the badge of intolerance and exclusion, which the religious right deserves to have pinned through their skin, but this time they demonstrated that notion as false and so we're seeing a collective intellectual temper tantrum by just about everyone left of center. But it's fun watching them spin it. I'm starting to get that Carlin affliction where I've pretty much given up on America and now I'm going to enjoy watching it all go down and watching all the idiots get swallowed up in their own bullshit creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 (edited) Did the republican presidential campaign spend $150K on clothes for Palin, or did they not? Does such an action run directly counter to their argument of maverick reform to approach in politics, or does it not? Does such an action speak counter to their claims of being more fiscally responsible overall, or does it not? Does such an expenditure cast doubts on their campaign promises of avoiding earmark style spending, or does it not? It's not all leftie spin, ParanoiA. Your post was as much spin as you accused the other side of doing. (EDIT: I mean "what you accused lefties" of doing. By saying "the other side," it seems like I'm implying something about your own political leanings which was not my intention). Me personally, I don't care about the clothes thing. While it makes them look silly and seems to go against the heart of what they claim to be offering the populace, I've got far more valid reasons for not voting them into office than this. Edited October 25, 2008 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I think if you have a pre-formed opinion about whether a party is being silly or irresponsible then you can't really offer us a useful or objective assessment about whether this new story is further evidence. Certainly you're entitled to think what you want, but you're not fooling anyone that you had an open mind about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 $150k is chump change in this political season. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/15/ad.spending/ I can't believe anyone is even talking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 (edited) Me either. Let's focus on the fact that McCain's policies are silly and not very well thought out, and his choice of VP was purely political in nature. I think if you have a pre-formed opinion about whether a party is being silly or irresponsible then you can't really offer us a useful or objective assessment about whether this new story is further evidence. Certainly you're entitled to think what you want, but you're not fooling anyone that you had an open mind about it. When did I claim to have any open mind? I'm trying to fool no one. That was my opinion. I even ended that I really don't give a rat's ass about the clothes thing, I have better reasons not to elect them. Edited October 25, 2008 by iNow multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Did the republican presidential campaign spend $150K on clothes for Palin, or did they not? Yes. Apparently so. Does such an action run directly counter to their argument of maverick reform to approach in politics, or does it not? About as much as Obama's campaign runs directly counter to their argument of "change". Does such an action speak counter to their claims of being more fiscally responsible overall, or does it not? Does such an expenditure cast doubts on their campaign promises of avoiding earmark style spending, or does it not? About as much as Obama's broken promise for public campaign financing speaks counter to his attacks on Bush's integrity. It's not all leftie spin, ParanoiA. Your post was as much spin as you accused the other side of doing. (EDIT: I mean "what you accused lefties" of doing. By saying "the other side," it seems like I'm implying something about your own political leanings which was not my intention). I have refrained from using silly examples like the ones I used above to vilify Obama because they're just as childish and elementary as "Clothes-gate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Palin said the clothes purchased were not in line with her family's personality and most of them were sitting unopened on her campaign plane. "The whole thing is just bad!" she said. "Oh' date=' if only people knew how frugal we are. It's kind of painful to be criticised for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported." [/quote'] Still, that does speak about McCain's policies for cutting spending. He could have at least asked her if she needed some clothes before spending 150,000 on them just for them to sit unopened. If he can't cut unnecessary costs and spending in his own campaign, how can he do it with a whole country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Still, that does speak about McCain's policies for cutting spending. He could have at least asked her if she needed some clothes before spending 150,000 on them just for them to sit unopened. If he can't cut unnecessary costs and spending in his own campaign, how can he do it with a whole country? Wait though...that's all true, but that goes for most of the money spent on a campaign. I mean, if we're going to pick this up and do some brow beatin' then let's talk about the 390 million bucks Obama has spent on this campaign and McCain's 85 million dollar purse he's gone halfway through. All of this money for a $400,000 / year job? I'm sure there's a laundry list of crap we'd all shake our heads about, that the two of them have spent their millions on. It's good to get pissy about it too, but once again, folks are only looking at cheap shots. Give it a day or so and I'll bet some idiot will have some smack on Obama purchasing a $20,000 necklace for his wife to wear at some white tie function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 It would be funny except that it's blatantly sexist and partisan - directly comes from the same place racism and prejudice comes from. Just on this note, I really don't think it's sexist at all. If McCain was playing the "I'm a coupon cutting Joe Six-pack too" card, then he'd be taking a lot more heat for his half a dozen houses and wardrobe expenses. But, the other candidates are all saying they came from humble beginnings, not that they still there now, so it becomes political fodder, albeit cheap fodder. I also don't think it's fair when people say "McCain should have asked her if...." etc because, honestly, this really seems to be a campaign engine out of touch with it's candidates. The McCain candidates (Himself and Palin) are undoubtedly caught in a whirlwind trying to keep up, with their campaign team taking on a lot of delegated work and decisions. Making sure "Palin has the right clothes for interviews" fell on someone, who obviously went overboard in a manner inconsistent with the appearance she is trying to convey. I doubt it's more than that, so it's really not a big deal. It doesn't say a single thing about the "characters" of the candidates, other than they are (for good reason) too busy to micromanage their own campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Ah, but see one can even twist that and say that it says something about their ability to choose their help responsibly, or if they can't keep control of campaign spending, how can they keep control of the federal budget? Or...choose your favorite poetic dig. People aren't allowed to make mistakes so politicians, naturally then, are people who have learned how to hide their mistakes. I question the need for that skill in our statesmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riogho Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Her outfits do seem a little mainstream to me... maybe not... maverick-y enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Unfortunately, I don't see how we are ever going to get much choice if we maintain the two party system. The easiest way to eliminate that would be to change our voting style. See my sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Much ado about Palin "Palin's 'going rogue,' McCain aide says" # Story Highlights# Sources say there is brewing tension between McCain aides and Palin # Palin aide says she is trying to take control of her message # "She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," says a McCain adviser http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html?section=cnn_latest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Me either. Let's focus on the fact that McCain's policies are silly and not very well thought out, and his choice of VP was purely political in nature. McCain's policies and his VP choice are real issues. So yes, lets talk about real issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Ok, I guess I'll copy and paste the obvious, which is conveniently located at the END of the article. Gee, you'd think that the accused's rebuttal would be right up front, but then you wouldn't be able to promote the damaging effect of rambling on about CREW and the dirty republicans before you read her response at the end. Palin said the clothes purchased were not in line with her family's personality and most of them were sitting unopened on her campaign plane. "The whole thing is just bad!" she said. "Oh, if only people knew how frugal we are. It's kind of painful to be criticised for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported." You know, for some reason I don't buy that, maybe because I'm a childish, elementary-school, crybaby liberal. You honestly take that response at face value? I'm sorry, I guess I don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 To be fair, that doesn't contradict what she said (that most of them are unopened -- this is just one picture). Also, if you look at the bottom writing, you'll see that that is hardly an unbiased source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I believe that she's frugal with her own money, but that doesn't really apply here. (She certainly wasn't frugal with Alaska's money, despite her claims, and less so with my federal taxes.) Honestly, I don't understand it. They obviously went to considerable lengths to disguise these expenditures (bought by a pollster, expenses listed falsely, etc.), but we're talking about clothes on a Presidential candidate photographed hundreds of times a day. Did they really think nobody would notice? I guess it just didn't occur to anyone that it would be "a story." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 it`s much ado about the whole bloody thing imo we don`t get this much media Spam with our Own elections! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 we don`t get this much media Spam with our Own elections!How many serious candidates do you usually have? I think the media in the US loves only having two parties to focus on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 2 here also, although there`s 3, no one really takes the lib-dems seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 What you need is some more exciting politics. Let's have the Queen start asserting her sovereignty again. Technically she can declare war on her own, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now