Republicans spend $150,000 on Palin's look

Thursday 23rd October, 12:23 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 113 Total Comments Show All

goodDonkey at 04:38 AM JST - 24th October

sarge said:

Pivot - Heck, that's what everyone in the media is saying - that Obama swept all three debates. And yet Obama CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL!

I keep telling you sarge not to take our word for it. Go see what Karl Rove has to say. For those unwilling to visit his site he has it at "Obama retains the lead in the Electoral College with 306 votes to McCain’s 171 and 61 votes as a toss-up."

http://rove.com/election

sarge I don't know what source you would find more reliable then Rove.

As for $150k, Taka313 said it well by bringing up the point of Republicans being hypocritical on Edwards and also how Palin & Co. have attempted to frame Obama as an elitist. Obama worked his butt off to go to Harvard and make something of himself. Who handed what to Barack Obama?
Taka313 at 04:44 AM JST - 24th October

sdmsec, I couldn't disagree with helter skelter more. You should always vote your conscience. Had he decided to run under the Mickey Mouse party, I would have voted for retired Gen. Tony Zinni. He was my guy. Unfortunately, those of us who urged him to run were able to convince him to do so. From there, my allegiance went to John Edwards, but then he dropped out. Now, I'm down to my 3rd option which is more of a vote against candidate mccain than it is FOR Sen. Obama.

Third party votes are considered wasted by many but they DO serve the purpose of highlighting a cause or belief so they still have merit within the political system.

Also, at least on a state level, third parties DO carry some weight. My home state of Minnesota is a prime example.

Taka
sdmsec at 06:31 AM JST - 24th October

Yeah, it seems big changes within a party have to begin in the smaller elections - state and House of Reps.

Still, there are times when pragmatism has to override idealism. Again, it's much easier for me this time as the outcome seems inevitable at the state level and at the national level as well.

The problem here is that Obama's millstones won't appear to be millstones until a generation or two down the road. Kind of the FDR effect. Bush, McCain, and the current GOP leadership hang millstones on our necks, too. I'm ready for smaller federal government at the international and domestic level.
Sarge at 06:53 AM JST - 24th October

Funny how the liberals are getting so upset over $150,000 for Palin's look, when Obama is spending $961,000 on one TV commercial.

Taka313 - "my allegiance went to John Edwards"

Now that shows a real lack of good judgement, doesn't it?
Helter_Skelter at 06:53 AM JST - 24th October

sdmsec

They don't represent conservative values at all - they only represent a watered down Democrat party.

I agree with you completely. But mine is more of a vote against candidate obama than it is FOR Sen. McCain. I believe there's a serious enough difference between the two. Better a watered down version of the Democrat party than the far left. And even though your state is red, the popular vote will be affected by a vote for McCain which does make a statement. I never bother voting for third party candidates unless they have at least some chance of winning.

As far as Taka's take on it, if you were leaning toward obama, he'd be making the same argument I am.

This is just the opportunity I've been looking for to vote my heart.

That's very honorable and I respect your sentiments. But I still don't think it makes practical sense. At least not now.
Taka313 at 08:03 AM JST - 24th October

sarge,

A lack of good judgement would be to allow sean hannity to do all my thinking for me (see: nearest mirror).

helter,

Thank you for explaining my beliefs for me. Next time, you may want to get them correct.

Taka
hereandthere at 08:29 AM JST - 24th October

seems fine that the Republicans spend money (donated to the party) on their candidates in order to prep the for election.

from all the comments here and on the news, it is obvious that the Gov. is hated for her looks (she looks good vs the Dems women of choice). Spending money on candidates for campaigning is normal and legal.

and for those poll watchers... seems the Dems lead the last two presidential polls too, so much for that.
Betzee at 09:20 AM JST - 24th October

Funny how the liberals are getting so upset over $150,000 for Palin's look, when Obama is spending $961,000 on one TV commercial.

You’re missin’ the bigger picture, Sarge. It’s the Republicans who are groaning over having John McCain’s campaign closing upstaged by the issue of his running mate’s wardrobe. He's now having to wade into the specifics of the cost of a woman lookin' good, a topic far outside the comfort zone of most men.

The base no doubt will rally ‘round Sarah Palin once again, viewing her as the victim of the liberal media, “eyes wide shut” to the hypocrisy of promoting herself as a regular ole hockey mom while struttin’ about in Jimmy Choos as her running mate, who can’t remember how many homes he owns, tries to convince the Joe Six-Pack’s of America that he feels their economic pain.

The truth be told, many professional women would admit a 150 grand wardrobe is not out of line for a high-powered job. But few of them are voting for Sarah Palin after being vilified as “elitists.” Cultural elitists, that is of course, no mention is made of the widening gap between the affluent, or rich, and the beleaguered middle class.

In fact her wardrobe has inadvertently opened the door to the way the upper crust lives. Specifically, you tell a personal shopper this is the look I’m going for and she will bring the clothes to you, allowing you to try them on in the privacy of your own home, paying only for the ones you want to keep. I once got a classy purse this way, a gift which became a treasured accessory the price of which I remain blissfully ignorant of.

Had they gone this route it would have been a lot cheaper. Instead it appears somebody scooped up over 70 grand worth of clothing on one expedition to Needless Mark-Up. Is this something Joe the Plumber’s wife can relate to? Don’t think so. Palin’s wardrobe may exceed the value of their lifetime of accumulated assets (after debts have been subtracted).

Personally, I look at how the person is put together rather than scanning their attire for a designer label. Sarah Palin always looked good and well turned out since her national debut in Ohio. I certainly can’t see where the money went. Betcha a lot of Republicans feel it could have been better spent, however.
SezWho2 at 09:45 AM JST - 24th October

sdmsec,

It may be true that allowing others to upgrade you from Walmart to Nieman Marcus doesn't change your core values. However, it can certainly compromise them. And compromise is a pathway to change.

Obama's income was about $1M before his big bump to over $4M last year because of book sales. I don't even know how much money McCain has access to through his wife--certainly millions. Biden's been in the Senate for 30 years or so and his income has plodded along at the hundreds of thousands per year. Why in the world would you think that any of these people did not buy their own clothing?

Incidentally, the Palins have assets of about a million. It seems to me that they should have been able to wardrobe Palin for a new job if they were committed to it. If Palin's new rags will really be sold or auctioned off to the sniffer set, they can't properly be called clothing. They are costumes.
hereandthere at 10:38 AM JST - 24th October

Betzee- Personally, I look at how the person is put together rather than scanning their attire for a designer label.

yet you still seem to endorse Obama.... interesting.
sdmsec at 07:34 AM JST - 25th October

Sez,

I don't have any facts to back this up, but I figure McCain, Obama, and Biden have easily spent similar amounts *from campaign funding *on wardrobes and image enhancements.

If you have facts that dispute this I'm interested in seeing your source.

On another topic: I think that those who say we should spread the wealth should have all of their wealth spread first. Only then should they ever have any claim on anyone else's wealth.
SezWho2 at 08:52 AM JST - 25th October

sdmsec,

Let's see now.

You are asserting that "McCain, Obama and Biden have spent campaign money for personal clothing". You have no facts. But you want me to prove that "McCain, Obama and Biden have not spent campaign money for personal clothing."

You're asking me to dig through all their campaign expenses to prove their legitimacy or to find an authority who has done that digging and made that proof. I'm asking you only to find one instance of what you say being true.

On your other topic, you know, don't you, that Obama was not actually talking about spreading the wealth. There is no federal wealth tax. Obama was talking about redistributing income which is exactly what our income tax system has done since its inception.

The phrase "spreading the wealth" is common parlance for "sharing". Obama was talking about his plan for persons with taxable income of over $250,000 to "share" 39% on each marginal dollar instead of 36%. Obama's proposal would have cost him over $100K last year.
Blue_Tiger at 12:33 AM JST - 26th October

Here's an interesting video interview with Jeri Thompson, the wife of Sen. Fred Thompson (she asks some pretty good thought provoking questions, not to mention putting Alan Colmes in his place):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGLagLETYv4
SezWho2 at 07:19 AM JST - 27th October

What thought provoking questions did she ask? Which one of Colmes questions did she answer? How did she put Colmes in his place? What is his place? Liberal whipping boy on FOXNews?
Blue_Tiger at 11:17 PM JST - 8th November

SezWho2 - I guess you missed it where Jeri Thompson asks why Palin is lambasted, while Michelle Obama gets a pass, and all Colmes could do was sputter.