October 22, 2008

Do you RNC campaign donors mind having spent $150,000 for Sarah Palin's wardrobe and $4,716.49 for her hair and makeup?

I assume you don't. She suddenly needed to look perfect for numerous high-profile appearances. How could she possibly have paid for all that herself? Imagine how she'd have been ripped apart if she'd relied on what she already had in her closet by all those folks who want to say: It's like McCain just picked your mom for VP.

But is it legal?
Federal law would bar the McCain-Palin campaign from converting campaign funds to "personal use" - a definition that specifically includes clothing purchases.

But a Republican strategist said the expenditure by the party committee was legal.
If it's not legal, there is an uneven burden on men and women. A male candidate can wear whatever business suits and shirts and ties he's had in his wardrobe for years. It's hard to go wrong. But the woman will be scrutinized, and there are so many pitfalls. Especially when she is suddenly elevated to the national stage -- like Sarah Palin -- a woman needs major fashion assistance.

ADDED: Here's the original report in Politico, and here you can see that the blogosphere is going wild over it. Of course, Palin opponents are going to use this material. Nothing wrong with that.

UPDATE: Apparently, it's not illegal:
Had the purchases been made by the McCain campaign, it would be a conversion of campaign money into personal use, which is prohibited. The same rule does not apply to money from party committees.

“The R.N.C. cleverly used the party committee’s money to avoid the liability that would have occurred if campaigns funds were used,” said Kenneth Gross, a lawyer who is an expert in campaign finance.

241 comments:

1 – 200 of 241   Newer›   Newest»
Freeman Hunt said...

If it's not legal, there is an uneven burden on men and women.

I agree. Women are expected to wear a more varied wardrobe than men, and the best clothes, clothes expected to be worn by a candidate at this level, are extraordinarily expensive. If it's not legal, then only extremely wealthy women can ever afford to run for national office.

MadisonMan said...

How much of the $150K went to Lee Lee's Valise? A good chunk if the RNC has any taste.

Lisa said...

It wasn't just her wardrobe but also they provided some things for her family. I assume for the convention and debate at the very least.

And no, I don't have a problem with this. To say that this was a misuse of money is basically to say that only the very wealthy can run for office.

Of course, no one has asked how much money has been spent on Michelle's wardrobe and she's not even running? Do we honestly think all of those high end dresses she wore at the convention were paid for by herself or were they 'gifts'?

Lawgiver said...

If Palin was a member of the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits this wouldn't be an issue.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Did Michelle O pay for her lobster and caviar with campaign funds? Has someone looked into that?

No...of course, not.

El Presidente said...

I have ruled for decades while wearing the same set of cammies.

Q: $4,716 didn't Bill Clinton spend that on a single haircut?

A: Only if you count the gas burned having Air Force 1 idle for an hour while it was cut.

Expat(ish) said...

Ann must not spend much time around men anymore. Suits, at least good ones, do last forever, but they don't look good after a hard day. I guarantee you that JM changes his suit at least twice or three times a day. Wool is warm, and the better it is (no matter how light the weave) the warmer it is per weight.

Shirts do not last forever, especially not if they're run through hotel laundry/starch runs. When I was traveling 5x5 (five days, five shirts) a good Nordstrom shirt ($90-$100 back then) was good for almost a year - or 50 wearings - before it was raggedy. And it looked not-so-good way before that so I'm sure people on camera get much less use out of them.

Let's not even talk about ties.

Thank good good shoes (three pair, cedar trees, frequent buff/polish/repair) and good belts (leather, two pair, hang straight on a hanger overnight) last forever.

Socks, don't even get me started on stupid socks.

-XC

PS - I dunno what the law is on campaigns paying for clothes, but SP and TP make $200K a year and live in freaking Alaska. If she had to spend $5K on clothes she'd probably have to run up her credit card to do it. It's not like she has Cokie Roberts wardrobe budget.

The Exalted said...

150K for a month of clothing...waiting for some contrition over all of the braying here over Edwards' haircut

Like I said when she got picked, the noise you heard was the democrats' popping champagne corks:

NBC/Wall St. Journal poll:

Now, Palin's qualifications to be president rank as voters' top concern about McCain's candidacy -- ahead of continuing President Bush's policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

Invisible Man said...

Did Michelle O pay for her lobster and caviar with campaign funds? Has someone looked into that?

You should keep current on your Republican Talking Points. That report has already been discredited at its source.

You would think that people who cared about $400 haircuts might be a little less hypocritical when dealing with $150,000 wardrobes. I'm thinking that this story lends to a sequel in 2009, "Sex in the City 2: Carrie runs for VP".

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

"A contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office ... shall not be converted by any person to personal use ... [A] contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office, including ... a clothing purchase...." 2 U.S.C. § 439a. There's an obvious tension here: the focus is quite plainly on using campaign funds for private use, but what if the clothing is purchased wholly for the purpose of the campaign and the candidate never takes title to them? I'd have to research this more closely, but I would think she's most likely in the clear.

Simon said...

The Exalted said...
"150K for a month of clothing...waiting for some contrition over all of the braying here over Edwards' haircut"

Not even remotely comparable. The problem with Edwards wasn't that he'd spent money on a haircut, it was the vastly, ridiculously profligate amount of money he spent on a haircut. There's no earthly justification for anyone with a Y chromosome to spend more than $20 on a haircut, and every cent over that is vanity. Now, I'm not running down vanity, per se. Everyone's allowed some vanity. I've spent more than $20 on a haircut before, because I was going somewhere nice and wanted to look nice. But let's recognize that it is vanity, and excessive vanity is a problem. And spending a grand on a haircut? $1000 - $20 is a lot of vanity.

Darcy said...

Interesting. I guess, to be fair, I'd like to have something to compare this expenditure to on the other side. My guess is that we won't get that kind of comparison...only hysterical finger pointing.

I'm glad that the party is responsible enough to be listing this stuff and putting it out there, for all to see and judge.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I absolutely lover her even more.

I was furious about John Edwards $400.00 haircut that he paid for but this makes perfect sense.

I have always said nothing says Main Street like Niemies and Saks.

She just won the urban gay vote. She is sounding all the right notes for me.

I am so glad they decided against second tier stores like Lord and Taylor.

And I am sorry but no charity recepient would appreciate the fine socialist tailoring of a european designer. I beg of the RNC to not give these items to charity.

Palladian said...

"Of course, no one has asked how much money has been spent on Michelle's wardrobe..."

From the looks of some of those dresses, hopefully not much.

Lawgiver said...

Now, Palin's qualifications to be president rank as voters' top concern about McCain's candidacy.

And this is the part I still don't get. She is a sitting governor, the top executive of a state with over 16,000 full time employees and 13,000 part time employees. The Alaska state budget is around 9 billion dollars which is larger than roughly 20 other states. Obama has run a presidential campaign and is a senator. Take away their names, compare their education and life time achievements on a resume then tell me which one would be more qualified to become president.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

How much did Biden's hair plugs cost?

Alcibiades said...

And how much did Hillary's wardrobe cost?

In any case, I imagine those totals included salaries for fashion consultants who did the shopping for her.

Original George said...

Afghanistan.

The NYT ran an article with a Soviet general a few days ago. He said we are making all the mistakes they made in Afghanistan. Plus new ones.

Article from a Canadian paper today: "The capital city, with its billions in foreign money and its legions of foreign troops, is under a siege....Many business people - and their desperately needed investment dollars - have left....Countries like Canada [need] to publicly, bluntly acknowledge the direness of the situation, and focus like never before on somehow fixing it. Yet as the embassy and UN and NGO staff....speed by the roadblocks in their armoured, bullet-proofed Toyota Land Cruisers, one wonders if the reality has sunk in."

The new Rolling Stone has a long feature which says the war there is lost.

Same issue has an interview with Sen. Obama in which he continues to say he wants to escalate that war. I predict he will try to do "community development" in Afghanistan. If you're 18, Uncle Sam Wants You! The draft.

I'd rather spend $150,000 on the lady's clothes than $150,000,000,000 on a war we can't win.

Declare victory and leave.

integrity said...

I'm not going to attack this. She or they picked out a great wardrobe for her. She looks terrific.

I said to someone the other day that I could not believe what great clothing was available in Alaska, now I get it.

The garments were definitely worth the cost. Someone has great taste in clothes.

Palladian said...

"And how much did Hillary's wardrobe cost?"

Nothing past the price of the first pants-suit: they're self-replicating. They regularly have to burn some of them so that they don't multiply out of control and burst through the walls of the house.

chickenlittle said...

Do you think RNC campaign donors mind...

No.

Palladian said...

Wouldn't you love to see McCain and Obama start wearing kelly green or Indian yellow or pink suits? I know I would.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Just saying the words Niemies and Saks gets me hard.

InterestedObserver said...

The wingnut right went wild over Edwards' $400 haircut. I'm waiting to see the right similarly explode over Palin spending $150,000 in donor money in 2 months for clothing! I won't hold my breath. Somehow I don't think the reaction will be even close to being the same. Hypocrisy thy name is Wingnut Republican.

garage mahal said...

Saks Fifth Ave and Bloomingdale's.

Real America.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

And she looks fabulous. That's what a good quality purchase from Niemies and Saks will get you.

By the looks of Hilary's pant suits it looks like she paid little. If she did that is a fashion crime. Those bright colors are hideous.

There is some gay man in the RNC behind those purchases for Palin. She looks so good.

And she shopping in NYC-thanks girl. During the band economic times I am glad the RNC invested in our great city.

Now let's all go shopping.

Darcy said...

I'll see you a wingnut and raise you a pipe wrench.

Cedarford said...

Yeesh! I can understand the Campaign wanting to make Palin look good, but most professional women can assemble a decent wardrobe for under 15K.

Mrs Joe Sixpack, Hockey Mom? "Dear Sarah" - the Pro-life Fertility Goddess of the Religious Right - close to 160K spent in a few weeks, and - what - as Governor of Alaska she had nothing presentable to wear but hand-stitched moose pelts? Along with her moose-fashion compatable 430 dollar designer glasses?

That of course doesn't include RNC expense for Palin & Family's air fares, hotels, nice meals...

Bad timing. Her "non-elite" salt of the earth Joe the Plumber types have Mrs Joe the Plumber attired in "respectable, but not extravegent Republican cloth coats",(using Nixon's phrase back when middle class women identified as Republican). They may agree that perhaps 3K a year on fashion and cosmetics is all they can manage on their family budget - since their annual income is 1/3rd or less of Palins Big Splurge.

Bad timing too as families are now having those "times are bad" conversations. Half their life savings gone in Wall Street shinanegans. College might not happen for the 13 and 14 year olds. No replacement for the "evil" old SUV this year. Christmas lists pared down, wives clipping coupons.

And "Our Sarah", as Fundies call her, was agonizing between the 8900 made in France Givinchy suit and the 9199.85 House of Castellano number fresh from Milan. And told to hurry up, because she still had 68,000 more dollars to have her style handlers fork over that day.
And the truckload of designer shoes was on their way up to her hotel suite? And she could only select 15 pair?

Now, the US blows a lot of money on stuff..million dollar disabled tanks abandoned then blown up because it is unsafe to send a tank wrecker truck into the combat zone. And the RNC and DNC will spend 150K on TV to get enough stupid people swallowing a commercial written for morons to get a 1% poll shift in a Swing State....

But at a time when people are relearning their love of leftovers and the thrill of updating their resume`s assuming layoffs are coming, Sarah's excellent fashion adventure has a certain poignency to the Fred the Carpenter and his wife Sue the WalMart Stocker.

(Especially if Fred&Sue sent a few checks in to John Mccain's "Desperate Appeal for money to safeguard traditional values against the haughty Elitist Obama.)

integrity said...

So true, but they have to pull stunts like that. Their policies are disastrous, they have nothing else but throwing a fake shitfit over a $400 haircut.

Many moderate repubs are reading about this today and are not happy campers. The wingnuts will never express outrage over one of their own.

MadisonMan said...

I have no problem with Candidates spending money to look good. I had no problem with Edwards' $400 haircut. They're just stoking the economic fires.

I will say, though, that Ms. Palin's dollars (or the RNC's) would go a LOT farther at Farm and Fleet, or at ShopKO, or at Lands End here in WI than at that nancy-fancy Nordstroms or Macys in the Twin Cities.

integrity said...

InterestedObserver said...
The wingnut right went wild over Edwards' $400 haircut. I'm waiting to see the right similarly explode over Palin spending $150,000 in donor money in 2 months for clothing! I won't hold my breath. Somehow I don't think the reaction will be even close to being the same. Hypocrisy thy name is Wingnut Republican.




integrity said...
So true, but they have to pull stunts like that. Their policies are disastrous, they have nothing else but throwing a fake shitfit over a $400 haircut.

Many moderate repubs are reading about this today and are not happy campers. The wingnuts will never express outrage over one of their own.

junyo said...

I henceforth demand that all candidates wear only clothes made from wool that they've spun from the fleece of their own sheep, that they walk on the campaign trail rather than use any money for transport, and eat only food that they've grown or raised themselves. It's the only way to maintain ideological purity of the electoral process.

Campaigns can't convert campaign funds to "personal use"? Unless you're running as a disembodied abstraction how exactly do you accomplish that? Because winning public office means that you realize personal gain. Most ex-POTUS's wouldn't get multimillion dollar book deals or lucrative speaking engagements without the title. Winning high public office inevitably enriches you personally.

Simon said...

integrity said...
"Many moderate repubs are reading about this today and are not happy campers."

I know that you'll struggle to accept this, but I'm a moderate Republican, I'm reading this, and although I'm not a happy camper, that has nothing to do with Palin. I don't think you know many moderates if you think this is a problem.

MadisonMan said...

At least she had the wisdom to buy in MN where there's no sales tax on clothes.

Imagine if she'd been in Chicago, and was handing over an extra 10% to Cook County!

ShadyCharacter said...

Well, I'm off until after the election. I had already deleted my bookmark, but I can't help checking in anyway as Ann has one of the most varied and interesting sites around. It's just gotten a little too nauseating the anti-Palin, pro-Obama tilt over the past couple of weeks. I'll be back in November. If I kept reading for two more weeks of this crap I'd probably end up losing all respect for Ann and I don't want that.

Shanna said...

You would think that people who cared about $400 haircuts might be a little less hypocritical when dealing with $150,000 wardrobes.

I don't care how much people want to spend on any of this stuff, with the exception of someone who goes out and tells everyone else they shouldn't spend money on the same things. Like Hollywood jerks who tell everyone else to conserve while not doing a thing themselves.

Or obviously if they are doing anything illegal or stealing from grandma's, etc...

Bissage said...

I find it alarming that it's now public knowledge how much Gov. Palin spends on her wardrobe, hair and makeup.

I sure hope nobody finds out what I've been charging for her weekly full body massage.

MadisonMan said...

I had already deleted my bookmark,

Do people really bookmark this site? How hard is it to type in the url?

ChiBlue said...

The excuses for Palin are getting seriously pathetic. Of course she has to wear nice clothes to run for such a high-profile job as Vice President. But $150,000 for 7 weeks? That's outrageous.

This woman goes around saying that she represents the Average Joe and the small town "real American." Yet, she spends more on clothing in two months than most Americans spend in a lifetime!?! Plus, she does this in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And she also gets the people of Alaska to pay over $21,000 for her children's travel expenses on trips to which they weren't invited? Reformer indeed.

Yet, most people on this site defend her? Really? I'm deeply disgusted by the despicably blatant lies and hypocrisy of conservatives and Republicans. You people have no shame.

I'm just glad that finally, finally many more Average Joes across this country are no longer being fooled by Republican lies and incompetence.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oh for crying out loud! The Democrats must be desperate to stoop to picking apart her wardrobe.

How much do you think a good man's professionally tailored suit costs? I can assure you that Obama is not wearing off the rack suits. A decent pair of men's dress shoes costs at least 250 to 800 dollars. A good shirt to go with the suit is another couple of hundred dollars....and don't get me started on cufflinks. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to have Obama or McCain wearing a $2500 outfit. I'm sure they wore more expensive attire at the Al Smith dinner.

True a man can wear a few less styles than a woman. If she wore the same outfit at every event or wore her "ordinary" clothing we would hear no end of the K Mart or Wal Mart wise cracks from the left. Maybe she should wear a pair of old sweat pants and a camo sweat shirt?

I have no problem with spending that amount of money to make sure that Palin looks the part of future Vice President. And spending several thousand dollars on designer clothing and designer shoes is perfectly acceptable. In fact in my profession it is ordinary to be wearing comparable outfits at business meetings and conferences.

As I recall.....our host has purchased shoes in the hundreds of dollars range, and so have I.

Cedarford said...

Did Michelle O pay for her lobster and caviar with campaign funds? Has someone looked into that?

Story was fake, a dirty trick. Someone marked up a fake room service receipt for Michelle Obama, who never even stayed at the Waldorf, let alone dined on room service lobster, caviar and champagne there. (She has her Chicago billionaire patron's parties for that stuff).

The NY Post bit without checking the story out. Had to eat their words and publish a retraction. Limbaugh also had to mumble out that when something is so delicious, more caution is in order..by him...after he bit on the NY Post story.

1jpb said...

The idea that you need to spend $150,000 to look respectable is the definition of absurd. It's hilarious to see folks arguing otherwise.

I don't think Palin's sycophantic followers are doing her any favors. She repeatedly lies to your face, but that's ok. After at least three months of VP questions, she doesn't still doesn't know that the VP is not "in charge" of the Senate, but that's ok. She's addicted to her gimme mindset, but that's ok.

She needs to be given some boarders because most Americans are not irrationally infatuated with her. Most folks care about substance. Can you imagine Powell, Buffet, or Volcker supporting her? Even a growing number of professional conservatives are opposing her lack of substance and readiness.

But, she is well dressed--so Simon and fiends are happy!

eclubantitokc,

Folks did look into that. It turned out to be a total lie. It never happened. You'd be better off if nobody had looked into that issue, then you could still throw it around.

1jpb said...

P.S.

I'm not a spending prude. E.g. a dozen pairs of Ferragamos is probably more than the average fella.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

My only wish is that Marcel the effete NYC Niemie stylist will be able to share the stage with the Joe the plumber.

Marcel needs to take a bow also.

Beth said...

Did Michelle O pay for her lobster and caviar with campaign funds? Has someone looked into that?

Elcubanitokc, you realize that story was a lie, don't you? It's been rebuffed by the paper that ran it.

Recovering Liberal said...

Ann,

I think your attempts to rectify your cognitive dissonance have become increasingly obvious since the (IMO) foolish decision to back The Messiah. I just hope that you do not have to pretzel yourself into very painful positions after a few years of the Obama administration.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Well, I'm gladd Michelle O was cleared of that. One wouldn't want her to be seen as an out-of-touch elitist...oh, wait, too late.

Bissage said...

Wow. I had no idea there were so many affluent commenters here at Althouse.

I’d better go buy myself a nicer pair of pajamas.

Beth said...

Not even remotely comparable. The problem with Edwards wasn't that he'd spent money on a haircut, it was the vastly, ridiculously profligate amount of money he spent on a haircut.

Remote doesn't halfway describe the comparison. $150K for a month's worth of clothes is ridiculous. Three families could live on that for a year. I can understand needing to up her game on the warddrobe, but not by that much.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Wow, three responses! That story, as fake as it was, really got under your skins.

MadisonMan said...

One wouldn't want her to be seen as an out-of-touch elitist...oh, wait, too late.

Thank you for pinging my irony meter.

(BTW It was actually 4, but I deleted mine right after the 1st one -- who wants to say something unoriginal? Not me!)

integrity said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
Oh for crying out loud! The Democrats must be desperate to stoop to picking apart her wardrobe.

How much do you think a good man's professionally tailored suit costs? I can assure you that Obama is not wearing off the rack suits. A decent pair of men's dress shoes costs at least 250 to 800 dollars. A good shirt to go with the suit is another couple of hundred dollars....and don't get me started on cufflinks. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to have Obama or McCain wearing a $2500 outfit. I'm sure they wore more expensive attire at the Al Smith dinner.

True a man can wear a few less styles than a woman. If she wore the same outfit at every event or wore her "ordinary" clothing we would hear no end of the K Mart or Wal Mart wise cracks from the left. Maybe she should wear a pair of old sweat pants and a camo sweat shirt?

I have no problem with spending that amount of money to make sure that Palin looks the part of future Vice President. And spending several thousand dollars on designer clothing and designer shoes is perfectly acceptable. In fact in my profession it is ordinary to be wearing comparable outfits at business meetings and conferences.

As I recall.....our host has purchased shoes in the hundreds of dollars range, and so have I.




You defending her is despicable. Stop selling all that down home country bullshit if you are going to say crap like this. And you do it on your website too.

I have 15 pairs of Prada dress shoes and another 4 sandals and 2 sets of sneakers and a wardrobe of designer clothing and have never spent anywhere near this sum. All of this designer stuff goes go on sale, if you give me $20,000 I can buy a full euro cut wardrobe. And I can do it at Bloomie's, Saks and Neiman.

Your P.O.V. is all over the map. Pull it together. You make no sense.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Who cares if it was fake eucalyptus, let's just go with it anyway.

I am pissed about Michelle's caviar and lobster tasting at the Waldorf that didn't happen.

But I am thrilled at the 150k that the RNC spent on Sarah's clothes...that did happen.

Recovering Liberal said...

To those concerned with candidate's wardrobe and culinary choices,

What a waste of mental energy! Your nitpicking and distortion of these trivial matters hurts rather than helps your position. It shows a lack of priorities as well as a lack of intellectual integrity.

Frankly, I am disappointed. I expected better from Ann, and from the often thoughtful individuals on this site.

Simon said...

Beth said...
"Elcubanitokc, you realize that story was [exposed as] a lie, don't you? It's been rebuffed by the paper that ran it."

So has the story that someone yelled "kill him" at a Palin rally, but the left keeps on clinging to it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Of course, no one has asked how much money has been spent on Michelle's wardrobe..."

Palladian said: "From the looks of some of those dresses, hopefully not much."

Actually, some of Michelle's dresses are quite nice for ordinary work day attire. If Trooper were awake, he would tell you than many of her dresses are by Donna Ricco and are available at Lee Lee's Valise and are quite reasonably priced

Michelle's problem in dressing, as long as we are nit picking the candidates and their wifes to death, is that she has a "lot of junk in the trunk" and that makes it hard to buy off the rack. I would assume Michelle's dresses are also personally tailored for her body style.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I would love Marcel of Niemies to come up to the podium in Youngstown to introduce Sarah.

"Today we have Sarah sporting a givenchy suit, complimented by a delicious pastel scarf by Gucci. Handbag, Prada-natch. Those come fuck me shoes are from D&G.".

He would need to do it all lispy and exaggerated with lots of arms flailing around. He would put Joe the plumber to shame.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

eeerrr ....'wives'

Joan said...

But $150,000 for 7 weeks? That's outrageous.

I didn't know clothes had expiration dates that short. I suspect that, having spent $150,000 in 7 weeks, Palin's wardrobe can handle whatever appearances she has scheduled for the next several months if not years, barring formal state dinners requiring extreme elegance.

The reason this doesn't bother me, or most people, I'd say, is that it's obvious that Palin needed the clothes and shoes. As noted above, she and her husband together make $200K a year and live in Alaska. What would she have in her wardrobe that would be appropriate for this campaign? She could have spent less and rotated fewer outfits, but then the press would be harping on that.

The difference between that and John Edwards' $400 hair cut is that Edwards' without question had many less expensive alternatives. Plus he made such a fool of himself fluffing and primping that anything having to do with his hair is fair game for ridicule.

Beth said...

One wouldn't want her to be seen as an out-of-touch elitist...

Josphine the Plumber spends $150K for a few weeks of clothes. She's one of us!

Let's nationalize Wall Street, and oh, did you know Obama's a Socialist?

Cognitive dissonance rules the right.

TMink said...

"And this is the part I still don't get. She is a sitting governor, the top executive of a state with over 16,000 full time employees and 13,000 part time employees."

Please do not bring data into this discussion! Governor Palin is not ideologically pure to the Liberal Iquisition.

Ideological purity is the name of the game. As a woman, she is required to have a narrow set of principles and beliefs in order to pass muster. She is supposed to support infanticide, to blame men for her every struggle, and to be an atheist or at least Wiccan.

Trey

Simon said...

ChiBlue said...
"she does this in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

This talking point has gotten so old so fast. Let's suppose that we are, in fact, in the midst of the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." It's like saying, my car usually gets 35 mpg, but one week it got 10mpg; last week it 33mpg, and that's like the worst performance crisis since the 10mpg week!

Salamandyr said...

You know, the problem with Edwards' hair cut wasn't that it cost 400 dollars, it's that it cost 400 dollars and looked no better than what you could get from the student barber at the Great Clips.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Sure, Beth, and if she dressed like "Josephine The Plumber", you and all of your fellow libs would be laughing at her, and wondering sarcastically if the campaign couldn"t pay for a better wardrobre. I've seen this movie before.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I happen to love the fact that the RNC spent 150k on her clothes in the past few weeks.

It sends a message that more Americans should buy high quality designer clothes at high end stores.

If this gets Americans to put themselves together and look a little nicer it has made the world a much better place.

John Burgess said...

Okay... I propose a new law. All candidates for political office, no matter the gender, may only wear clothing made of sack cloth or hair cloth. That will please the mobs as it shows utter disregard for vanity.

Or, and this time around I'm really sort of liking the idea at least for one VP candidate, they all go naked.

One thing I notice for its absence in this discussion is the relevant fact that most high-level female politicians (particularly at the White House level) actually get the majority of their party clothes for free.

Designers are more than happy to provide their clothing merely for bragging rights. You don't think Jackie Kennedy actually bought that wardrobe, do you?

It's a little tougher for conservatives to reap the bounty of the designers, though. Designers trend left and some would rather gnaw off a limb than to be associated with anything to the right. So, Republicans have to pay for what would be freebies for the left.

That all goes away if someone is in the White House or up in the VP mansion at Observatory Circle. Political purity can be overcome by pride, after all...

Beth said...

I've seen this movie before.

You wrote that movie, Elc. That's why you keep seeing it in your head. You've also seen the "She's one of us!" movie before. Conservatives are in the middle of a shared hysteria over Palin.

Invisible Man said...

The difference between that and John Edwards' $400 hair cut is that Edwards' without question had many less expensive alternatives.

Your joking, right? If you don't think that a woman could look great with anything less than a $150,000 wardrobe, your elitist credentials are bar none.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Beth said...
I've seen this movie before.

You wrote that movie, Elc. That's why you keep seeing it in your head. You've also seen the "She's one of us!" movie before. Conservatives are in the middle of a shared hysteria over Palin.

10:17 AM


Actually, no. You are fired, and I'm not paying for this session. Goodbye.

Beth said...

The difference between that and John Edwards' $400 hair cut is that Edwards' without question had many less expensive alternatives.

Yep, shared hysteria. She's one of us, that maverick!

Trooper York said...

See what happens when I take a nap.

High end woman's clothing can be wildly overpriced. Especially if you are shopping at Saks. They made a deliberate choice to buy a great deal of clothing very quickly so they had to pay top dollar which when it is all added up comes to this huge sum. I face this problem when I am buying for the store. The high end designer clothing comes in at a very high price. A dress from a top designer can be $700 to $1,000 retail and a tailored suit even more. If these items are to be used at an event the are comparable to the cost of a man's suit at Barneys or Brooks Brothers. Women’s shoes are wildly overpriced with costs of $500 or $1,000 very common.

Dust Bunny Queen makes a good point about the Donna Ricco dress that Michele Obama chose which retails for $158 that she wore on the View. We had that dress in the store and let me assure you that it was a conscious political choice to choose that piece. It is a great dress and fit her to a T. But I would venture to suggest that not all of her wardrobe is of a similar cost. Her designer wardrobe expenditures for the year would most likely be in the same $150,000 range. Remember this was all bought in a very short time so the total amount seems outrageous.

I must say that Michele Obama would be much better for my business than Sarah Palin as Michele has a much more contemporary style and fits in my size range and sensibility. In fact I did a lot of my orders for spring with her in mind. Boat loads of purple.

My main problem is finding quality apparel at a reasonable price so working people can buy great clothing that will look great at a party or family event. I have plenty of working people who come in and do lay-away for a month or two to afford designer clothes as well as people who do lay-away to afford a $150 dress. Finding high quality clothing at a reasonable price is very, very difficult. Especially for professional women.

McCain, Obama and Biden are very lucky. Since they are US Senators they have a lot of empty suits lying around.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Is that the new talking point passed down from The One (PBUH), Beth?

Trooper York said...

Thanks for the shout outs from Madison Man and Dust Bunny Queens.

If any of the ladies at Althouse would like to look like they spent $150,000 without doing so, they can shop at Leeleesvalise.com on our new online shop.

Check out the video of our last trunk show and see what you have been missing. The video should be up tonight.

Synova said...

Josphine the Plumber spends $150K for a few weeks of clothes. She's one of us!

Actually...

It's the fact that we (I?) believe that she is one of us, and know without a doubt, that we could never afford to dress for a campaign, even if we had a number outfits that we wear normally, that makes her seam even more "like us."

I mean... I applied for a job and had to buy a pair of dress slacks and a couple of shirts just for the interview... and sure I got them at Target and Sears, but the concept of not having clothes and having to buy them in order to even *apply* for a job (meaning... I don't yet *have* the job, and thus have absolutely no money to spend on clothes in order to apply for the job) is something very understandable to "Josephine the Plumber."

I don't know how much clothes cost.

I know that I watch "What not to wear" and have to agree with the lady who looked at the $70 price tag on a pair of jeans and announced that it was obscene... yet, obscene as it is, that is what it is. I'm still trying to believe that hundreds of dollars for a pair of shoes really does let one wear three inch heels without getting sore feet... it will likely always be a matter of faith... I can't imagine ever owning a pair.

So, $150,000... I don't even know if that is reasonable or not because clothes and shoes (and handbags!) never seem reasonable to me. But I expect that she had to get everything, just like I would if I got a job in an office that required me to dress for work.

The hair and make-up?

$4,716.49 seems like a reasonable amount if she's got a full time person to do her hair and make-up, and having a full time person to do that seems reasonable, considering that she's got to have her hair and face done, most likely, before every appearance.

But in the end... it doesn't make her seem elite... it makes her seem like me.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Lees Valise should be the go to store for women politicians and politicians wifes.

You may have your work cut out for you if Barbara Mikulski comes in the door but I trust you can do wonders Trooper.

I see Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, the blonde from Washington, Diane Fienstein and even Hilary coming to your store.

How about Jill Biden?

How about Mama Biden?

Is there anyway you can market to these ladies?

Those liberal commie women may help your profits yet.

Palladian said...

"Yep, shared hysteria. She's one of us, that maverick!"

"Hysteria" is a sexist word, Beth. I think you don't like Palin because she's a woman. Sexist!

Titusdoesntbottom said...

My mother shops at Kohls department store, Boston Store and Ann Taylor and looks great.

Women don't have to shop at fancy stores to look nice.

Granted, when you are in the spotlight some of the clothes from some of the high end stores are helpful.

My sister is totally a Land's End women. She dresses like Kate Hephurn and looks great. Very natural, outdoorsy and frugal. She also bikes and works out like a demon and the clothes tend to fall off her and in a weird way this looks interesting.

Synova said...

It's not cognitive dissonance...

It's seriously, "What would I need if I were running for national office."

Since I had to buy clothes in order to work... even if they were casual, I needed jeans without holes... it is easy to identify with not having the necessary work attire.

The only time I didn't spend money I didn't have for interview clothes and didn't spend my entire first paycheck on clothes to wear to work, what when I enlisted in the military. (And then, I *should* have bought a good pair of boots!)

Trooper York said...

Titus if your mom ever comes to visit you in the city, take her to Lee Lee's and we will put her in some beautiful stuff that will make her the talk of Madison. Severely discounted of course.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Palin naked would be fine.

Biden naked would not be fine.

Obama naked would be really fine. My sense is he is uncut.

Trooper York said...

There are a lot of factors that go into the cost of a garment. The fabric, where it is made and even the size have a huge impact. Mass produced garments made in China that you find in Target, Old Navy and Lands End are of course cheaper to produce and cheaper for the consumer. Of course the quality is not always the best but it is good enough to last a season. A high end designer item should be a classic cut so it would serve for several years and give you a lot of use out of it. At least it does for the stuff we have in the store.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

$150.00 is a great price tag for a dress too.

It's not Niemans but it is not JC Penney.

It sounds like a nice middle ground.

What are the hot sellers for the fall Troop? Now let's here that vivid description of the have to have garment.

Trooper York said...

I only wish that Barbara Milkuski would come to the store. We would have her looking like a million dollars. She is the type of woman my wife helps in finding a new style and a new wardrobe.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I have purchased some cute sweaters at Old Navy in the past but they only last after one or two washings. They lose there shape and look awful. Initially, they were fitted and accentuate my guns and waist but a couple washes and there is no elastic around the waist and the neck is crap and the arms shrink. They become unwearable.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Women don't have to shop at fancy stores to look nice."

True, but the clothing has to fit. Most "off the rack" clothes are made for the generic woman or someone as lucky as Titus' sister who is probably model thin.

A petite woman like Palin, a large athletic woman like Michelle O and many other women who have areas of their body not in the generic proportion range, need to have their clothes professionally altered or need to purchase more expensive and better constructed garments. Same thing for shoes.

Everything I own for work has to be custom made or altered and I'm certainly not going to pay for alterations for a dress bought from Penny's or Sears. Casual things like slacks, jeans, sweaters etc no problem. But if I want to look sharp and professional in a business suit or dressy dress there is no way other than to have custom clothing.

The amount that was spent on clothing for Palin is peanuts in the big scheme of things. She looks sharp and business-like and attractive.

Tempest in a teapot and indicative of how worries the Dems must be. They have thrown all kinds of crap up against the wall hoping that something will stick.

Synova said...

There is also the question of getting the most bang per campaign buck, and having Palin look the part seems like a wise choice.

And if that's all it is, if we're going to talk excessive campaign spending, maybe we ought to talk about just how much more, overall, that Obama has spent. Are the donations made to his campaign being used in the most effective possible way? My trash is full of glossy mailers with his picture on them. Are all the many people who send him their hard earned money mind the way it is spent? When he's outspending McCain by two to one... has all that money been used frugally and wisely?

integrity said...

McCain campaign just said the clothes are going to charity after the election.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's just gotten a little too nauseating the anti-Palin, pro-Obama tilt over the past couple of weeks."

How is this post anti-Palin?

integrity said...

I love that, a homeless woman running around in her box in highly fitted outfits. Fun stuff.

Synova said...

Integrity... obviously liberals aren't into charity.

You auction them, and give the money.

DUH!

Trooper York said...

The hot seller Titus is our Missoni Maxi-dress with a winter weight fabric made exclusively for Lee Lee's Valise. We have already sold out one complete run and have started on the next cut. We also have a beautiful purple coat that was featured in Essence Magazine this month. The mosaic print top that was featured in What Not to Wear has also been a steady seller. We have a new vendor who has several dresses inspired by Doris Day’s outfits in the sixties which are flying off the shelf. Anna Scholz’s black leather trench coat is really hot as well. Finally we are featuring business basics as fabricated by Gayla Bently who will be having a trunk show on November 1.The perfect attire for the business woman on the go. Check the website for details.

I would even put you in the next video Titus.

Beth said...

Is that the new talking point passed down from The One (PBUH), Beth?

Are you familiar with the concept of projection, Elc?

Rich B said...

I just went to the Politco site to search for any stories about the fraudulent small donors to Obama(Doodad Pro, Good Will) and only found a mention in a story on McCain. It referenced Newsweek for the story.

Good to see that the Politico is on the job scrutinizing the McCain campaign's expense reports. They know Obama is clean as a whistle.

Shanna said...

I am pissed about Michelle's caviar and lobster tasting at the Waldorf that didn't happen.

That story mostly made me hungry for lobster. Mmmmm. Too bad for Michelle it wasn’t true, because except for the caviar it sounded awesome. But it never made any sense, so I’m not shocked it was a fake.

Trooper York said...

Dust Bunny Queen is absolutely correct. The fit is the main thing and everyone has an issue with their bodies. I mean everyone. So you have to work with them to find a fit that works with the body type.

What works on an apple shape body will not work on a pear shape. But there are perfectly acceptable and attractive pieces that can work on either shape. Some things are just not right for you. That's the problem with shopping in a department store. You don't get much guidance on what would look good on your particular shape and what would flatter your good points and minimize your "problem" areas. That is what we specialize in. Personal service that puts you in clothing that makes you look and feel your best.

It is pretty fucking scary how much I know about woman's fashion since we opened the store.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Love your description Troop. You write the stuff yourself I am sure.

My sister is not model thin. The think is she is athletic thin. And my mother and I always try and buy her clothes that accentuate her body because she has a wonderful body. But she won't wear anything form fitting. It is all really baggy. She could really look great but clothes and cosmetics are not important to her. He hair is starting to gray, she wears no makeup and her clothes literally fall of her. You have no idea what her body looks like because nothing she wears accentuates the positive that is underneath.

But that is her choice and she is comfortable. Believe me I tried to go shopping with her to perhaps pick out something attractive and different that would look nice on her but we always end up at Lands End.

She still wears this old Boston University sweatshirt I purchased for her 15 years ago...almost every weekend.

Trooper York said...

Dust Bunny Queen, I would be able to put you in some ready to wear outfits that would be perfect for any party or business function which would need minimal alterations and be perfectly servicable. And pretty freakin' cool. We specialize in hard to fit people and they never go away without something great. We don't have everything, but we have more than every one else.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

It's not the dollar amount, it's the hypocrisy. Don't go into "small towns" and preach about them being the "real America" after spending more than what most people in small towns make in a year on an outfit you wore once.

I love that Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild was out campaigning with her, too. Hilarious.

1jpb said...

I remembered BHO being teased by his family in that interview with the two kids. They talked about his worn out pants and shoes.

Here is a picture of his worn out shoes.

More proof that the guy does have some fairly conservative personal characteristics.

P.S.
I prefer the BHO strategy of keeping his kids lives as normal as possible. I don't think it's bad that Palin drags her kids around with her, e.g. I saw the young girl on stage with her yesterday. But, I prefer isolating them from the campaign, keeping them in school, and providing them with routines and normalcy.

P.P.S.
Is it sexist to suggest it's bad for her older son to not finish high school, and her older daughter to have a terrible attendance record? Of course, I read this at Sully, so it may not even be true.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I agree it is the fit, but just important is the material and how it is made.

That is why when you do pay a little more you expect that the item will work for years to come.

If you buy something at Old Navy, Target, or Gap it is likely going to be with you for one season.

I do buy designer clothes. The designer clothes I buy are not trendy. The colors are minimal. Lots of black and white with maybe some light blue and an occassional red. Oh and some green. That's it as far as my color scheme. They are items that you can wear year in and year out. And most of them wear well for many years. So in that respect they are worth the price to me.

Trooper York said...

Titus, we get a lot of tall and athletic girls who can not get anything that they like to fit them. So they give up. But with personal service and a careful edit we would find something that would fit her and that she would be comfortable in without it freaking her out.

We got know as the "dress" store because we have so many great dresses. Women who haven’t worn a dress in twenty years buy them in the store and love them. It reinvigorates their sense of style. I always tell them they have to get out of their comfort zone. I ask "Hey I am helping you pick out bloomers instead of playing golf on a Saturday morning, do you think this is my comfort zone." So they try on a dress and they love it.

Synova said...

Zach... why don't you ask those in small towns what they think, instead of assuming that they are going to be upset about hypocrisy because Palin was provided a wardrobe that she didn't have... if this bothers them... how much did Obama spend on his suits? Did he buy them at the thrift shop? If Joe Farmer got his suit at a thrift shop, shouldn't Obama wear a thrift shop suit, too?

If not, why not.

Invisible Man said...

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild or Lady de Six-Pack as Palin calls her.

Beth said...

Palladian, if you think I'm making fun of Palin, you're not reading closely. She's a wonderful circus ringleader, highly effective. She's got you all singing "she's one of us! she's a maverick." If you prefer, I'll call it a shared mirage.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

All my weekend, during the day, clothes are crap.

It is jeans and t shirts and sweat shirts and sweaters and tennis shoes. Sure I may have a cute hate or accessory but why get dressed up when you are picking up dog shit and on the ground at the park playing with dogs.

I just don't want commenters here to think that I roll out of bed on a Saturday morning and wear a Prada outfit. That would be gross.

I don't like seeing people dressed, especially on the weekends during the day, that are too put together or are working too hard. That is common. There is too much going on in the ensemble I can become dizzy trying to take it all in. There is no need in my view.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

God Trooper I don't wear dresses but even I want to go over there and buy a dress now. Your descriptions are great.

You know how to work it.

I wish I new some drag queens on a personal level to send your way.

Palladian said...

"She's got you all singing "she's one of us! she's a maverick." If you prefer, I'll call it a shared mirage."

LOL. Funny! Now how about a round of YES! WE! CAN!

Your mirage loves that one!

Beth said...

Is it sexist to suggest it's bad for her older son to not finish high school, and her older daughter to have a terrible attendance record?

I do think it's sexist, yes. And there's never any question about male candidates and how they deal with their kids. It's certainly something I've seen aimed onl at women, and not just Palin, in this election.

I like that the Obamas seem to be keeping their kids' lives on an even keel, but they're also very young.

Palin's older kids are teens, and they might be having the experience of their lives right now. They could well be doing their schoolwork online, also. That's quite easy to arrange.

Beth said...

Palladian, find one instance of me swooning for Obama. I'm voting, not going to a Beatles concert. The Palin worship here is funny. It's acrobatic. Yes! It! Is!

Bruce Hayden said...

This is a bit of a dilemma. Legally, the campaign may have crossed the line a little bit. But on the other hand, few of those who ultimately contributed to the wardrobe are likely to complain, and most are likely very happy to see their money spent this way.

One interesting point is that if McCain were to win, she would have to dress nicely all the time. And the president/VP surely don't pay for their own stuff, and in particular that of their spouses.

Rather, much of the designer stuff that first (and second) ladies wear is donated to them, and when they are done, it is supposed to either be given to charity (as apparently Palin's new clothes are here) or saved by the country for posterity. Which, BTW, was another reason that Hillary! got in a little trouble when they were moving out of the White House - she kept some of the stuff that was loaned or donated (and, of course, never included that as income on their tax returns).

One problem here is that most female politicians at the national level are already rich, or their husbands are. And, many of the men are too. Ferraro's husband apparently was. Ditto for Pelosi, etc. Hillary and her husband made maybe $100 million after he left office. But Palin is not.

John Kerry's and John McCain's wives are both insanely rich, and can easily afford to dress so. Even the Bushes and Cheneys are rich enough to do so.

But I would be interested in knowing whether or not either of the Obamas have ever worn clothing to a campaign function that they had not purchased with their own money. My bet, due to the nature of his profession, is that they have.

Simon said...

Echo Synova's comments.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

why don't you ask those in small towns what they think, instead of assuming that they are going to be upset about hypocrisy

I'm sure many of them would say it doesn't matter to them, because they are in the tank for Palin.

And then they will turn around and criticize Michelle Obama for phony lobster dinners.

Call it hypocritical, call it a double standard, call it whatever you want.

You can't make this stuff up! (Well, if you're the Post, apparently you can.)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My sister is not model thin. The think is she is athletic thin

Like Katherine Hepburn? I've always admired and wished for that body style. Can wear anything and look great. Instead I'm more the Bette Midler body type.

Otto Titsling LOL

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Trooper I just saw a clip about this stupidity on Morning Joe and that Mica chick referenced Michelle Obama's 150 dress that she wore on The View but never said where she purchased it.

It was all Niemis this and Saks that about Sarah but nothing, not attribution to Lee Lee Valise.


You should demand that they say where Michelle purchased that dress.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Palladian, find one instance of me swooning for Obama. I'm voting, not going to a Beatles concert.

Beth, you're forgetting that, according to Palladian, anyone who is not voting for McCain-Palin is an Obamabot. It's just his charming way of marginalizing anyone he disagrees with.

Trooper York said...

Well Michele did not buy the dress from Lee Lee's Valise. She got it direct from the designer Donna Ricco.

But I want to put it out there that if Michele will come to shop at Lee Lee's Valise I will officially endorse the Obama campaign. Vociferously and to the hilt and be her number one defender on the internet.

I can be bought.

Anthony said...

Frankly, I won't really believe it for another week or so. It will probably follow the same pattern as all other Palin "scandals": It will turn out as either misleading hyperbole or outright false (cf. "Kill him").

Contrasted with Obama/Biden where the opposite is the case.

Really, at this point, Obama could be caught red-handed planting a bomb under a buss full of senior citizens and what would we hear about? What was the bus driver's name? Did he have the right license? Does he owe any taxes? Has he ever been arrested? Is he a Republican? And why did he just "happen" to park the bus over a bomb?

madawaskan said...

What the hell?

Virginia is back in play...

[within 2% latest Mason-Dixon]

chickenlittle said...

ZPS wrote: And then they will turn around and criticize Michelle Obama for phony lobster dinners.

And others still will turn around and criticize Sarah Palin for phony birth certificates, being too pretty, being inexperienced, having clear-cut opinions, etc, etc.

Call it hypocritical, call it a double standard, call it whatever you want.

Beth said...

DBQ - Bette Midler bodies look good in mermaid tails. Perfect for a night out at the seafood hut.

Beth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickenlittle said...

Beth wrote: mermaid tails

mmm, fish taco grand. me likey likey!

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
peter hoh said...

Where's Stephanie? I want to see if she still wants to claim that Palin is an "off the rack kind of gal."

Zachary Paul Sire said...

And others still will turn around and criticize Sarah Palin for phony birth certificates, being too pretty, being inexperienced, having clear-cut opinions,

?

First, this sentence does nothing to deny the point I make about those in the tank for Palin discarding her 150k makeover and then chiding Michelle Obama over food expenditures that never even existed.

Second, no one serious is talking about birth certificates or physical appearance.

Third, experience is a substantive issue that can be debated on both sides.

Fourth, "she has clear-cut opinions..." well that's just funny.

Nice try.

peter hoh said...

Which one of these guys is Simon?

chickenlittle said...

Zach wrote: Fourth, "she has clear-cut opinions..." well that's just funny.

funny?

Should I have said "strongly-held views?"

I don't really think you're laughing.

integrity said...

peter hoh said...
Which one of these guys is Simon?



The one on the right.

Lawgiver said...

ZPS said,

You can't make this stuff up!

Well apparently you can make stuff up whenever it pleases you. You're the guy that down post said all the research you have read proves people are born gay.

Alaskans are such ignorant yahoos they need at least 150K to learn English and wash the fish stink off their hands before they are acceptable to normal Americans anyway.

peter hoh said...

Regarding the the campaign contribution law," Simon wrote:

There's an obvious tension here: the focus is quite plainly on using campaign funds for private use, but what if the clothing is purchased wholly for the purpose of the campaign and the candidate never takes title to them? I'd have to research this more closely, but I would think she's most likely in the clear.

I guess it would all depend on what the meaning of "is" is.

Donn said...

AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch.

Donn said...

Oh.....and more important than Palin's wardrobe expenditures:

GO RAYS!!!!!

integrity said...

Donn said...
AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch.



Just in, Fox News has Obama by 9. Fox News.

AP is trying to save it's ass, good luck.

peter hoh said...

Palin's wardrobe news.

Pogo said...

I'd like to see the cost breakdowns before bitching about this. But I am supposed to condemn her immediately, according to my liberal betters.

Meanwhile, not a peep about lawyers and prosecutors serving on the Orwellian Obama Truth Squads, nor the ACORN voting fraud for Obama, nor the legal threat to sue those who complain about voter fraud.

Yep, fuck democracy, those dresses are way too expensive.

MadisonMan said...

what if the clothing is purchased wholly for the purpose of the campaign

I think it likely that the dresses will be auctioned off -- maybe the RNC'll have better luck selling them on ebay than Gov. Palin had with that jet that didn't sell. ('tho I'm anti-ebay at the moment with their shift away from auctions).

Would they have been auctioned off had this not been discovered? Well, that's a different question.

MadisonMan said...

Not condemn, pogo, ridicule. Big difference. Never pass up an opportunity to ridicule a politician.

Peter, I think those are horses, not donkeys, on that scarf.

chickenlittle said...

Pogo wrote: Meanwhile, not a peep about lawyers and prosecutors serving on the Orwellian Obama Truth Squads, nor the ACORN voting fraud for Obama, nor the legal threat to sue those who complain about voter fraud.

Under President Obama, humor will be frowned upon and we will feel compelled out of guilt to flatter Michelle and her fashion cues.

peter hoh said...

Pogo, when I had to listen to gushing about Palin being an "off the rack kind of gal" and a refusal to admit that she wore at least some expensive clothes -- from someone who had earlier pushed the lobster story -- yeah, I'll have a little fun with this.

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"Which one of these guys is Simon?"

Oh neither. They're very young! Besides, neither of them are are looking at her ankles, so definitely not me.

You commented on my comment about the legal side of it, and I'm happy to talk about that. I'd much rather we were talking about that. But at this point, that's quite clearly not the direction the comments on this post have taken, so I don't want to get into it here where it'll be a distraction. I'll post at SF about it later, or if the comments here come back around to it.

Shanna said...

There's an obvious tension here: the focus is quite plainly on using campaign funds for private use, but what if the clothing is purchased wholly for the purpose of the campaign and the candidate never takes title to them? I'd have to research this more closely, but I would think she's most likely in the clear.

I guess it would all depend on what the meaning of "is" is.

Not at all. I would think of it like a costume. Her wardrobe is her costume for the theater that is politics. Nobody can deny that this stuff is important. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but it is.

Beth said...

what if the clothing is purchased wholly for the purpose of the campaign and the candidate never takes title to them?

Sort of like the Pope and his vow of poverty. The fancy hat and nice Italian shoes aren't really his. They're just on his head and feet.

peter hoh said...

Simon, I believe that the expenses for wardrobe don't make for a violation, so long as the clothes (and handbags) are donated to a charity (or sold at auction with the proceeds going to charity) after the election. I'm just having some fun with you.

peter hoh said...

And Simon, if you're into ankles, make sure you see the rest of that slideshow on Huffpo. Number 7 should work for you.

JAL said...

It does raise a fariness issue, doesn't it? (Why should women's blouses cost more to dry clean and press than men's shirts... DUH.)

Al Sharpton, after he was sued by, and lost to the Dutchess County assistant prosecutor(WRT the racist, fraudulent Tawana Brawley fiasco) has forever claimed near poverty, inspite of some rather pricey suits which he always is wearing (Armani? I forget ... whatever, real pricey). I don't know that Pagones ever got his money.

Sharpton claimed the suits weren't his, he didn't own them. (They're just custom tailored for him through his church? Non-profit?)

I understand the need to have the law written to protect donations from being used for personal gain (Hey -- isn't being in Congress personal gain?) But this smacks of elitist crap. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't ...

Normal Americans are not to aspire to the breathy thin air of service to their country on the national level. (OT - Deedee Myers On Leno the other night epitomizedd the snarky condescending elite stuff that TURNS NORMAL PEOPLE OFF. So I turned Leno off. Advertisers take note.)

Palin's supposed to be such an ignorant hick, what's the harm? Have mercy on her and let her pack her little bag with the goodies and slink back to the cold Alaskan winter.

In your dreams. :-)

Pogo said...

Yeah, ridicule is fun, I suppose.

It would be much more fun if there weren't fake voters and fake donors for Obama.

Anyone know of any law blogs that discuss minor shit like lawyers working on the Missouri Truth Squad? Or is this just limited to snark about some moose-killing retard-saving community colege beauty queen sportscaster in a Wonderbra who had the audacity to think some non-liberal non-East Coast outsider might be good enough to be Veep?

Why women aren't pissed about the way she's been treated is beyond me. But then, liberal women were okay targetting Clinton's sexual conquests as sluts so what did I expect?

Pogo said...

To make it more fun, I'm just gonna identify as a Democrat so I can yell at women in public or wear t-shirts that call females c*nts and sluts.

Since I'll be a Dem it won't matter!

Pogo said...

Jesus H. Christ, that's effing genius.

Why didn't I think of that before?
Being a democrat means neve having to say you're sorry.

It's gonna be a goddamned blast. PC for thee but not for me. Yee effing hawww.

Paddy O. said...

"most people in small towns make in a year on an outfit you wore once."

It's not hypocrisy, it's opportunity. Invite any single woman in these small towns, or big towns, to a national event in which they will be featured.

"What will I wear?" will be among the first questions. That's not sexist or elitist.

That's human.

And if she hadn't of spent money on a look there would be article after article attacking her as being frumpy.

It's a no win situation, so might as well look good.

This is absolutely no different than adding decorations, such as faux greek columns, to an event. Money is always spent on look. That money is spent specifically for a candidate isn't surprising, especially if it is money spent well, as Palin's look attests.

How much money is spent on buttons, t-shirts, campaign stuff, fixing up aircraft, buses, etc. to get them the right look?

Trooper York said...

Can't help you with the T-shirt Pogo, but we just got our Prima Donna Bra and panty order in so I can set you up with some sexy undies.

Deep plunge and everything dude.

Paddy O. said...

"Why women aren't pissed about the way she's been treated is beyond me."

Read a book on beauty that discussed Picasso recently, by Danto I believe. He mentioned how Picasso, and many people, took a perverse pleasure in seeing woman, particularly beautiful woman, abused and put in grotesque situations.

Certain folks like the cheerleader, certain folks want to be the cheerleader, a lot of other folks want to see the cheerleader disfigured, disgraced, and dehumanized. It's human nature.

Lots of those latter folks go into journalism, I suspect.

JAL said...

Gotta go back to work -- 2 more things:

Palin as governor of Alaska negotiated a complex contract involving the state of Alaska, the Candian government, the oil companies, contractors, environmentalists, the FEderal Government, et al for a natural gas pipeline crossing out of the US into Canada to provide natural gas to the lower 48. Cost estimates range from $26 to $40 billion dollars.

Not your kitchen table Girl Scout cookie sale.


What did Barack Obama do besides vote present?

{crickets}

Well....

Barack Obama trained Chicago ACORN staff in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals based power play community orgainizing.

Ka-ching.

Pogo said...

So feminism is just a modernized coffee klatsch bitch session, mafiosas in mules drinking mai tais?

Cool.

And thanks, Trooper. NTTAWWT.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Bette Midler bodies look good in mermaid tails

Ha ha ha!!! OMFG Beth I laughed so hard. I love Bette Midler. Who else would do such a thing and get away with it.

Why women aren't pissed about the way she's been treated is beyond me.

Pogo. Women are mad. The news media are just not asking the right women. Leftist feminists whose entire agenda seems to be centered around abortion are more than willing to attack and savage Palin. The ordinary woman, who doesn't have a pre-set agenda, who works for a living and who is mostly ambivalent about abortion....is pissed. How dare they treat Palin and Hillary for that matter of fact in such a shabby way? We worked too hard to get where we are today to be taken down by a bunch of slavering hyenas in women's clothing.*

That probably doesn't fit well either and makes them look frumpy. No wonder they are so crabby. :-)

madawaskan said...

Integrity

Well in FOX/Opinion Dynamic's last poll before the election in 2004 they predicted a win for John Kerry of the popular vote by 48% to 46%.

George Bush in actuality received 51% of the vote.

They were off by 5%.

link to pdf

Xanthippas said...

The ordinary woman, who doesn't have a pre-set agenda, who works for a living and who is mostly ambivalent about abortion....is pissed.

My wife is mostly non-political, ambivalent about (but supportive of) abortion, and works for a living while raising two kids. And she HATES Palin. So if you're trying to lend some veneer of "credibility" to your support of Palin by arguing that she gets the support of "regular" women, you're just flat out wrong. But hey, maybe if you add some more qualifications to your definition of "women" you can find somebody who thinks the way you think they do.

madawaskan said...

Well the thing I absolutely loathe, hate about Sarah Palin, and there's absolutely nothing she can do about it?

She comes from a state with only three electoral votes.

One that was going to vote Republican anyways.

One that gets you some excitement in the neighboring state of, oh wait never mind...

Just think if Cheney had come from a state that got you more than three electoral votes...

How the whole election of 2000 might have played out differently. If Cheney had been from even a red state [and not a swing state] with more electoral votes the popular vote might have played differently-and the whole legitimacy question that the media and Democrats played against the Republicans would have been absent.

You know the electoral college idea-it's perhaps not a bad one and you'd think that after that -the 2000 election- the Republicans would have learned. There was a glimmer of hope that they had when Ridge and Pawlenty were the campaign chairs for McCain but there they go again....

What were the odds that they could make an electoral college choice as bad as someone from Wyoming? Well, they managed to do worse-Alaska which borders on what?

Saskatchewan?

OK maybe Alberta but not too many of them hosers vote in our elections.

Pennsylvania or Minnesota [maddeningly close in recent polling] might be a foregone conclusion by now-and they might have been able to save Coleman in the Senate now he faces being replaced by a clown.

Christy said...

I'm late to the party, but I offer up my 2 cents anyway.

Every working woman in America, outside of academia I'm sure, understands the concept of an interview suit. We all know it needs to be the best we can afford. Palin didn't have the option of waiting around for clothes to go on sale, she had to put together that interview wardrobe immediately.

Don't the women's shelters in your neighborhood regularly put out the call for donations of interview clothes?

Speaking as a lifetime Democrat (I cast my first ballot for Al Gore, pere, and supported Clinton) voting McCain/Palin.

peter hoh said...

madawaskan, Alaska's Canadian neighbors are B.C. and the Yukon Territories.

Yes, I think this election would look a lot different had Tim Pawlenty been McCain's VP.

Joan said...

Beth, this isn't the first time you've brought up the Pope and a vow of poverty. I didn't think that Benedict XVI was a member of a mendicant order. Not all priests and religious take vows of poverty. If you have different information, I would be very interested to read more about it.

Regarding Sarah's clothes: they're not buying her nightgowns and t-shirts. They are costuming her for her appearances. I'm sure you understand, you just don't want to admit that it is entirely reasonable.

Besides, you should be happy that the RNC is spending money on Palin's clothes instead of something else more effective. Wait, presenting your candidate in the best possible light is on point. Never mind.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Did anyone see the Daily Show when it went to Wasilla to meet with the mayor.

On Mondays they have a meeting at 10 and on Thursdays she signs the checks.

It was hilarious.

Pogo said...

"It was hilarious."

Yeah those fucking hick morons. They're so cute, almost like a real town. In a blue sate, the checks go to friends and allies, and you never ever find out how much money is being pissed away.

Was there a deformed kid playing banjo on the porch, too? Because in real blue states like here in Minnesota, we abort the retards, so it's been awhile since I seen one.

Simon said...

Peter, you're a gent. Now let's get that in UHQ... ;)

Beth, I don't think that's really a good comparison. Look at the other items listed under § 439a(b)(2). "Clothing" is really sui generis on that list, because everything else on that list is clearly and can only be personal use (for example, there is no conceivable utility to a political campaign for a making a mortgage payment), whereas clothing can certainly be for campaign purposes. The statute boils down to this essential command: don't take campaign money for personal use. Notice how §§ 439a(b)(2)(A)-(I) is an inclusive rather than exclusive list, giving content to the preceding prohibition on using campaign money to "fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign." In that context, does it not make sense to read "clothing" - which can encompass both clothing that is used as part of the campaign and that is not - as not including clothing that is used primarily or exclusively for campaign purposes, a fortiori if the candidate never takes title to the clothing? The statute says that you'll be deemed to have converted campaign funds if you sink them into various irrevocable personal uses, but how can you convert something that you simply use and do not own?

Reading the statute to include anything that falls under the definition of "clothing" for any purpose, I'd submit, is not required by the text and is at odds with the balance of the section.

Maxine Weiss said...

"I can understand the Campaign wanting to make Palin look good, but most professional women can assemble a decent wardrobe for under 15K."-----Cederford


_____________________


She's not just any professional woman. This was a history-making campaign. She drew 20,000 people to her appearance in Grand Junction. 60,000 people went to see her at a rally in Florida.

I'm all for shopping the wholesalers and combing the outlets......but NOT when you need something quickly, and you are going in front of thousands of people, and the cameras are going to close-up on your every move.

The weave of a fabric, the richness of a hue of color....the more expensive garments will reflect a higher level of quality....WHICH CANNOT BE FAKED ON CAMERA !!!

Could the same thing be found at the outlets for 3x less ? Yes, but that requires time.

They didn't have the kind of time it takes to search for bargains, nevermind fittings and alterations. To do that on the fly.....requires big money.

And, it's paid off......her clothes have been flawless. The depth of the shades, the expensive textures and weave......that's what their buying at that price level. And, it makes absolute sense given their timeline and the need for quick turnaround.

Beth said...

Joan, really, you can't look good on what, $20k for a couple of months? What a crock. And a false dilemma, with your jammies and t-shirts alternative.

Beth said...

Simon, I don't care a whit whether the clothing is or isn't a valid campaign expense. Makes no difference to me.

Beth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bjm said...

I'm probably out of the thread mainstream...but while the prices Trooper quoted seems expensive to many, it's actually in the lower middle of the price range.

I attended a Needless Markup trunk show a few weeks ago and a flippy little summer skirt one might throw on for an al fresco lunch can easily run $1500-2000.

The same garment, off season and minus label of course, would go for $450-500 in Loehmann's Backroom.

So no, I'm not shocked, in fact they showed restraint by going retail floor Prêt-à-Porter.

There are many charities that specialize in reselling or auctioning celeb clothing. I donate to a local group that outfits abused women re-entering the work force.

The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation is the most well known through donations of couture gowns by award attendees and film stars.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Pogo, no there wasn't a deformed kid playing a banjo but there was this fat white guy that had three tattos.

One was of his wife naked that went down the length of his arm, the other was of the women he cheated on his wife on-the tattoo had her putting her finger to her mouth like she was saying shhhh, as in I won't tell and the other was the virgin mary. All three went from his shoulder to his wrist. It was pure artistry.

He was a very religious guy.

jdeeripper said...

madawaskan said...Integrity

Well in FOX/Opinion Dynamic's last poll before the election in 2004 they predicted a win for John Kerry of the popular vote by 48% to 46%.

George Bush in actuality received 51% of the vote. They were off by 5%.


Ann "Satan's Skinny Minion" Coulter has an excellent article on the polls.

EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER

Donn said...

Xanthippas:
My wife is mostly non-political, ambivalent about (but supportive of) abortion, and works for a living while raising two kids. And she HATES Palin.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't ring true to me, more along the lines of "As a lifelong Republican..." line of nonsense.

How does someone, who claims to be ambivalent about politics, come to HATE Sarah Palin? Does your wife personally know her?

While I disagree with BHO about his politics, I certainly don't HATE him, in fact, I think he's very likable, which is one reason he will win this election.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I thought we don't care about the polls anymore.

Hasn't ACORN already decided this election? That way when we lose we can blame someone.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I don't agree with Palin's politics but I don't hate her.

I actually like her. She's interesting, new, cute as cute can be, and dresses great.

And she has a killer rack.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I think it would be a little more interesting and get her a few more votes if she wore something low cut on top that accentuated her bust line. I would be interested in seeing more tit from her.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

I'm tempted to donate to the RNC in order for them to purchase more items for Sarah from Niemies and Saks.

madawaskan said...

Peter-

I was just tryingto be an ass-I'm good at that!

ripper-

I'll go take a look at that.

Anyways you know when a guy tells you that you need a *gay* boyfriend ummm...

What's he trying to tell me?

You know I've got a good idea...possibly that I need a serious dose of style.

Oy!

madawaskan said...

Besides I like the word-

Saskatchawhooey...

integrity said...

They should get her those big fake nipples that looked so good on Miranda on "Sex & The City".

Titusdoesntbottom said...

OMG, the big fake nipples would be a game changer.

All of the recent polls that say she is a drag on Mccain would evaporate.

She can pull this out by a nipple.

Do it Sarah, get the nipples.

I also implore to expose a large defined bust. That is so important to me as a voter. I want to see the bust. Nothing says leader like an amazing bust. Look what it did for Hilary.

integrity said...

HuffPo has a pic on the front page that is rioutous. Palin's red designer shoes against the backdrop of a group of makeup free, down to earth Jane Sixpacks. One of the funniest shots I have ever seen.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

In life in general the breast needs to be exposed more.

I hate the fact that the breasts seems so confined in the bra and sweater. It is so unfair to the breast and those that honor the breast. The public demands more breast exposure.

Palladian said...

"One of the funniest shots I have ever seen."

Wow.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Perhaps a camel toe in the designer jeans would be helpful too.

I think Marcel, the fashion consultant from Niemies need to consider letting the camel toe be exposed in Palin's jeans.

At this point in the campaign it can't hurt. It can only be helpful.

integrity said...

I bet the shoes cost $1,500.

The camel toe. LMAO. The deeper the better.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Also, if there is any left over umbilical cord from the last pregnancy it would be nice to see that hanging on one side of the pant leg. If we could see the definition of that that would be great.

Or maybe just a piece of it poking over the waist.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

Or maybe a piece of the circumcision on a necklace with a cross tangling between the bust.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

At this point in the campaign we need to think outside "the box".

integrity said...

Titusdoesntbottom said...
Also, if there is any left over umbilical cord from the last pregnancy it would be nice to see that hanging on one side of the pant leg. If we could see the definition of that that would be great.

Or maybe just a piece of it poking over the waist.



Either you have to stop or I can't read anymore. Someone just came into my office demanding to know what I am laughing(to tears) about. And I can't tell them, lest they find out about my secret online identity.

Synova said...

Oh yeah... that was funny.

I'm gonna laugh any moment now.

Titusdoesntbottom said...

or what we need to do is focus "on the box".

Trooper York said...

Beth, I must respectfully disagree. To get the clothing of a level that would be at a level of a vice presidential candidate could easily add up to $150,000 if the stores soaked as I am sure they did.

Just goes to show you that all candidates and their ladies should shop at Lee Lee's Valise. I will offer them a substantial discount (as long as they mention us on Meet the Press or the View).

Pogo said...

Isn't feminism grand?

But I am confused, because I can no longer tell the difference between liberal feminists and old-timey mysogynists.

Little help here?

Trooper York said...

Not all old-timey misogynists have whiskers.

integrity said...

Synova said...
Oh yeah... that was funny.

I'm gonna laugh any moment now.



Are you suggesting Titus doesn't hit it out of the park in at least 75% of his posts? We may be on different political teams, but he is one funny motherfucker. Unbelievably witty, among other things. May we all be as creative as he is, the threads would be a whole hell of a lot funnier and interesting.

Baron Zemo said...

Do not fret my dear integrity.

You and Titus most definitely play on the same team.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Unbelievably witty, among other things"

If you like Beavis and Butt Head I guess you might think so.

Beth: For 20K Palin would only be able to have about 4 outfits and none of them really on the level that is needed for campaigning. I can just see the news if she rotated 4 outfits over and over. The gal just can't win. Either the RNC is spending too much on her clothing and she gets criticized or she wears the Alaska soccer mom Wal Mart gear and she gets criticized. I'd rather be criticized in that red jacket, booted outfit....thank you.

Christy said...

Showing my age, but I remember reading that the IRS went after Dinah Shore for taking a deduction on the clothes she wore on her show. She had to put them on and show that she couldn't possibly do normal stuff in those skirts, couldn't even sit in some of them.

Trooper, do you think Pushing Daisies has had any influence on those Doris Day dresses? I know I love the way Chuck dresses, very technicolor mid-century.

Simon said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
"Either the RNC is spending too much on her clothing and she gets criticized or she wears the Alaska soccer mom Wal Mart gear and she gets criticized. I'd rather be criticized in that red jacket, booted outfit....thank you."

I'd take some criticism from her in that red jacket, booted outfit...

Boy, that Titus really is contagious!

Simon said...

200!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 241   Newer› Newest»