palin's waist of $$$$

Palin bunch travel at Alaska expense
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:34:18 GMT
The State of Alaska paid for the Palin children to watch their father in a snowmachine race.
Republican running mate Sarah Palin has reportedly charged the State of Alaska more than $20,000 to cover her children's travel expenses.

An investigative report by the Associated Press reveals that the State of Alaska paid $21,012 for 64 commercial flights and hotel accommodation for Governor Palin's three daughters after she took office in December 2006.

The children traveled with Gov. Palin to events where, according to some event organizers, they had not been invited to and did not even participate in.

However, three weeks before Palin was surprisingly chosen to run as Senator John McCain's vice president, she ordered changes to previously filed travel expense reports for her daughters.

In the amended reports, the Alaskan governor added phrases such as 'First Family attending' and 'First Family invited' to explain the girls' attendance.

Palin's three daughters once joined her on an official trip to watch their father in a snowmobile race.

Among her other trips, Palin took her 17-year-old daughter with her to New York for a five-hour conference, where they stayed for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel and put it on the state's tab.

The Alaskan law only addresses expenses for anyone conducting official state business and does not allow covering the expenses of a governor's children.








Palin spends big on fashion amid recession
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:08:25 GMT
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin
The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 on clothing and accessories for vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September shortly after Gov. Palin was picked as Senator John McCain's running mate.

The records show the cash expenditures were not only spent on the governor herself, but also her husband, Todd, and her infant, Trig, Politico reported.

A McCain camp spokeswoman, Maria Comella, declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much.

"The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.

Only hours later, however, after the story raised concerns among Republicans and angered Democrats, the McCain camp released a statement. "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," read the statement.

"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

Democrats, meanwhile, have employed the subject to raise the alarm that Gov. Palin is not like the rest of middle-class Americans as she claims.

"It shows that Palin is not like the rest of us," Huffington Post quoted Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist, as saying.

"It [the issue] can help deflate her cultural populism with the Republican base. The plumber's wife doesn't go to Nieman's or Saks."

The financial records indicate that the cash spent by Gov. Palin included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York amounting to a combined $49,425.74.

Hahaha they are going to donate the clothes to charity after, so it's okay? A radio report I heard this morning noted one expense was a $2500 Valentino jacket. I bet some low-income person is going to have a great time wearing that little hand-me-down to their crappy job at the fast food place... WTF!
This isn't, to me, even a political-party issue so much as it demonstrates the serious class divide in our culture. If the Repubs want to waste campaign dollars on that shit, let them. If the State of Alaska doesn't audit their financial records closely enough to note that the governor is abusing her power, more fools they. I'm just glad to see this type of government waste be noticed, so that in the future we the People may feel that our tax dollars are being used for the reasons we are satisfied to pay them: Improvements in the quality of life of the average American. Not to line the pockets of the elite.

you know, not for nothing but if the RNC hadn't invested in her
wardrobe, sure as shit, the media would be all over her for her
attire.

and considering how much the Dem's are spending on this campaign,
and the number of ACORN offices under investigation, it surprises me
anyone would want to talk about money. you think those suits of
Barry's are cheap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

you know, not for nothing but if the RNC hadn't invested in her
wardrobe, sure as shit, the media would be all over her for her
attire.

and considering how much the Dem's are spending on this campaign,
and the number of ACORN offices under investigation, it surprises me
anyone would want to talk about money. you think those suits of
Barry's are cheap?

---

Ha ha ha ha! Dude, I think they could have prettied her up a bit for a LOT less than $150,000 --- I mean how much lipstick do they need to put on this piiiiiiiiiiiii..... uh, pitbull?

Holy crap! Either they are wasting money, or she is absolutely HIDEOUS without the bling.

And "Barry" as you like to call him, buys his own suits. They are not paid for by his campaign or by the Democratic Party.

I wonder how all those hockey moms, and Joe Sixpacks, and Joe the Plumbers feel about the fact that any donation they may have given to the Republican party this year has gone in part so that Palin can live like Paris Hilton and spend $20,000 a week on a high-end spending spree?

Any one who can spend $150,000 on fashion in less then 2 months is obviously a maverick who can take on the fatcats and keep an eye on wasteful spending! Hahahahahahaha!

Maybe the only thing more ironic than this would be if the Valentino jacket were actually made of Pork!

Maybe as an accessory, she could buy a diamond-encrusted veto pen to cross out wasteful spending items. If she spent S100,000 on the pen and then shopped of the rack, maybe the RNC would be money ahead in this whole deal.

She hasn't done anything every other governor in the country hasn't done. Its just she's under a lot of scrutiny. Where to you find an honest politician to run for public office? You don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Ha ha ha ha! Dude, I think they could have prettied her up a bit for a LOT less than $150,000 --- I mean how much lipstick do they need to put on this piiiiiiiiiiiii..... uh, pitbull?

Holy crap! Either they are wasting money, or she is absolutely HIDEOUS without the bling.

And "Barry" as you like to call him, buys his own suits. They are not paid for by his campaign or by the Democratic Party.

I wonder how all those hockey moms, and Joe Sixpacks, and Joe the Plumbers feel about the fact that any donation they may have given to the Republican party this year has gone in part so that Palin can live like Paris Hilton and spend $20,000 a week on a high-end spending spree?

Any one who can spend $150,000 on fashion in less then 2 months is obviously a maverick who can take on the fatcats and keep an eye on wasteful spending! Hahahahahahaha!

Maybe the only thing more ironic than this would be if the Valentino jacket were actually made of Pork!

Maybe as an accessory, she could buy a diamond-encrusted veto pen to cross out wasteful spending items. If she spent S100,000 on the pen and then shopped of the rack, maybe the RNC would be money ahead in this whole deal.

---

the money was spent on her entire family and if it hadn't been spent,
the media would be all over the Palins calling them all kinds of names.
as has been evidenced already.

oh yeah, Barry was what everyone called him before he entered politics

and, if he gets in, you won't have to worry about the veto pen 'cause
Barry will sign every entitlement bill he sees. that's his answer, huge
government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

the money was spent on her entire family and if it hadn't been spent,
the media would be all over the Palins calling them all kinds of names.
as has been evidenced already.

oh yeah, Barry was what everyone called him before he entered politics

and, if he gets in, you won't have to worry about the veto pen 'cause
Barry will sign every entitlement bill he sees. that's his answer, huge
government.

---

In true bipartisan form the Bozo is defending the absurd. Truly not calling them how you see them. Both parties make mistakes and it takes an objective and honest citizen to admit it when it happens. I struggle too at times. No always though, when Biden's donation information was made public i agreed with all the right wing bashers that it was Totally disgraceful. i can admit it.

There is nothing wrong with calling Barack Obama by the name "Barry", but he's not known by this in his public life today and it can be confusing. I would think that "Barry" is the name his wife, family and friends call him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

There is nothing wrong with calling Barack Obama by the name "Barry", but he's not known by this in his public life today and it can be confusing. I would think that "Barry" is the name his wife and family call him.

---

i call him that because that was his name until he entered politics.
to me, that makes it an affectation and vaguely dishonest.

my intent is also to be somewhat dismissive and derisive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

the money was spent on her entire family and if it hadn't been spent,
the media would be all over the Palins calling them all kinds of names.
as has been evidenced already.

---

Sarah, the First Dude, and the 5 kids, makes it $20,000 each with $10,000 left over to clean up Bristol's baby daddy, which is only fair, because he is ALMOST family. So yeah, thanks for pointing that out, because spending $20,000 EACH in 2 months is much more reasonable!

I hear that Joe the Plumber is going to buy a business that will allow him to spend $10,000 a month on clothes for each member of his family too, and that is why he is concerned about taxes --- don't want to have to cut back to $9,000 a month! That would be un-American!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

i call him that because that was his name until he entered politics.
to me, that makes it an affectation and vaguely dishonest.

my intent is also to be somewhat dismissive and derisive

---

I realize that is your intention, but it doesn't work in this case. Barry actually sounds better than Barack. :)

If he had used Barry as his name in politics, rather than his real name Barack, then some of his opponents would call him Barack as an insult.

May I remind everyone that nicknames and given names each have their place; the ever-classy Mrs. JFK was Jacqueline when the situation required, and Jackie when it didn't. I've got no particular issue with anyone going by a shortened, affectionate version of their name in informal situations- it seems a silly detail upon which to dwell.

This whole thing is a PR fiasco more than anything, and it points to the mentality of people in politics, and the hypocrisy of campaigns.

McCain's whole pitch has been that he and Palin are different from the Republican pigs that have been wallowing around the stye and gorging themselves at the trough under Bush. He talked about the wasteful excesses of his fellow Republicans at the convention, and he said, "They elected us to change Washington, but we let Washington change us." And his campaign since then has been mostly about how he and Palin are a different kind of Republican, they are reformers who are going to eliminate waste.

This kind of thing goes completely counter to that argument. Maybe Washington can actually change a person before they are even elected to Washington? Or maybe Palin didn't change and that is just the way she really is.

he probably always went by barry because it sounds more white and less muslim and threatening. he probably only switched it to barack for politics because it sounds more powerful and commanding. i mean say it outloud, barry's in charge, or barrack is in charge.

not to mention it helps get the black vote. and probably the muslim vote somewhat. think about if he was going by barry. how many black people would call him a sell out and a cracker n***a. if it's good enough for your wife to call you that and your family and friends why can't the country call you that?

there are plenty of politicians that go by nicknames or accepted shortening of names of names. hell we got one in texas named kinky. the lady running against him wanted to get grandma put on the ballot. i'm pretty sure barrack wouldn't have been an insult if he was going by barry.

i go by a nickname, not my given, and i don't feel insulted when someone calls me by my given name.

-shake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I realize that is your intention, but it doesn't work in this case. Barry actually sounds better than Barack. :)

If he had used Barry as his name in politics, rather than his real name Barack, then some of his opponants would call him Barack as an insult.

---

possibly so, it doesn't change the direction he wants to take
us in and i for one am frightened at what will happen when we
have no-one in charge but liberal Democrats like Pelosi, Dodd,
Frank and Obama.

So because I introduce myself to people as my given name instead of one of my nicknames, it is an affectation and vaquely dishonest? Sounds a little backwards to me.

It would only be a dishonest affectation if you introduced yourself as The Honorable Reverend Doctor JaySin. lol. I fail to see how a nickname that does not imply advanced degrees or some other elevated status would be dishonest. Hell, I got one 6'4 buddy who we often call Shorty. I guess THAT is less than accurate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

It would only be a dishonest affectation if you introduced yourself as The Honorable Reverend Doctor JaySin. lol. I fail to see how a nickname that does not imply advanced degrees or some other elevated status would be dishonest. Hell, I got one 6'4 buddy who we often call Shorty. I guess THAT is less than accurate...

---

it must be just me.

it's like if Billy Joel decided to run for office under the name William
Joel, while it would in fact be his given name, it's not the name he
has always been known by and so, it would be an affectation and
therefore, dishonest.

and my calling him 'Barry' isn't the point anyway, it's just my way
of being somewhat derisive and dismissive, regardless of whether
others agree with me or not, which is a lot less nasty than the
things that have been said of McCain and Palin by many of the
members here.

some of the folks here have been down right nasty and mean spirited.

God forbid someone should question the anointed one,
they open themselves up for an extreme outpouring of
the most vile vitriol i've ever seen.

Goldwater isn't turning over in his grave - he was cremated. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Goldwater isn't turning over in his grave - he was cremated. :thumbsup:

---

lol, now there was a 'Barry'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

It would only be a dishonest affectation if you introduced yourself as The Honorable Reverend Doctor JaySin. lol. I fail to see how a nickname that does not imply advanced degrees or some other elevated status would be dishonest. Hell, I got one 6'4 buddy who we often call Shorty. I guess THAT is less than accurate...

---

af·fec·ta·tion (āf'ěk-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A show, pretense, or display.
2.
1. Behavior that is assumed rather than natural; artificiality.
2. A particular habit, as of speech or dress, adopted to give a false impression.

i'm not arguing with you stinky, i think you are one of the smartest, most educated people on this board (sorry, been going through some of the LED grow light forums mess), but to me that sounds like affectation to me.

if you are an individual such as barack, with different ethnic backgrounds, and barack hussein obama II is your given name and you introduce yourself as barry (which sounds like an attempt to separate from your african heritage, just an assumption obviously) is that not a habit to give a false impression?

when he goes to predominantly black schools and starts talking this "we are gonna do this and we are gonna take over the whitehouse" i'm pretty sure he's not talking about his party. this is gonna be a ground breaking election either way, but if barack does get elected will it only be a half as grounbreaking because he is only half black? at least palin is 100% woman....as far as we know. (maybe the $150,000 wasn't for clothes. and there was more than just a conference in new york.)

i personally would want people to call me by my nickname and not my given name, even if i decided to foray into politics. (which is where i'd like to end up someday actually, but for the RIGHT reasons!) there are several reasons for this, one is i don't particularly like my given name. also, i'm a third, and i don't like my dad at all. okay, i don't know my dad at all. why would i want to go by a name given to me to carry on a tradition when there really is no tradition to carry on with no dad there? so i will not stop going by my nickname if the political career does happen to materialize. why would he?
if fellow politicians decided to call me by my given name it wouldn't bother me.

once again, if it's good enough for your friends and family why is it not good enough for a nation you want to lead? as soon as you get into politics you decided to go by your given name and for what reason? his campaign message is change right? i guess that meant change your name, not the country! maybe, like me he didn't like his dad? (i don't know much about barack's personal life.) but in my opinion, he more than likely did it to get the black vote, and the muslim vote too.

personally i don't care what color you are or what they call you, as long as you can lead this country in the right direction. take control away from corporations and put it back into the hands of the people. the lobbyist situation in washington is getting out of control. stop putting people that have the right to protest on terrorist watch lists. America is heading down a bad road indeed. Dark days. i believe that we will see civil war in my lifetime. i'm 29. if not mine, my kids for sure. and it's gonna take a lot more than a name, campaign slogan or anything else to get it done.

we need health care for everyone. we have to take the power from the large drug companies. i think that would help alleviate a lot of the economical problems that this country has. well obviously not as much now, thanks to all of this mortgage crap. where was washington then? oh yeah, they just gave them all of OUR money to bail them out. and maybe the can make some money out of this ordeal (but this is our government we are talking about, they did just add a paper dollar sign to the national deficit counter so they could use left-most display to add another number!) what took so long? that's America for you, one big corporation! it's disgusting and makes my stomach hurt.

not to mention we need education for everyone, immigration and taxes fixed (the irs still owes back taxes i believe). that's just to name a few. medicare and social security are set to run out soon. in the next couple of years (i can't remember, maybe '09 one will be paying out more than it is taking in and the other one will follow suit shortly). and by what, 2030 or whatever it was, maybe a little later, they will be out of money in the surplus for those programs. they knew it would fail when they setup social secuirty. WTF! thanks lbj. the whole insurance fiasco was probably one of the worst decisions in the history of america.

don't get me started on the prison system overhaul that needs to happen, as well as the reform of laws between the federal and state levels. especially drug laws (our favorite herb legalized being number one!) how is it that we can have state and federal laws that are in direct confliction?

maybe an eye for an eye mentality would help some there?

i'll stop ranting now. sorry. i'm just passionate about this country (i was a marine, and i've been around the world, i've seen some real sh*tholes and bogus governments.) it just pisses me off to see americans taken advantage of and lied to. and i hate seeing the seperation of classes expanding. there is enough money for everyone to live comfortably. but we have to do what they say when we are under there thumb.

if barack wins, he will be the first senator to become president since jfk if i'm not mistaken. and i think we all remember what happend to him.....

-shake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headshake

af·fec·ta·tion (āf'ěk-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A show, pretense, or display.
2.
1. Behavior that is assumed rather than natural; artificiality.
2. A particular habit, as of speech or dress, adopted to give a false impression.

i'm not arguing with you stinky, i think you are one of the smartest, most educated people on this board (sorry, been going through some of the LED grow light forums mess), but to me that sounds like affectation to me.

if you are an individual such as barack, with different ethnic backgrounds, and barack hussein obama II is your given name and you introduce yourself as barry (which sounds like an attempt to separate from your african heritage, just an assumption obviously) is that not a habit to give a false impression?

when he goes to predominantly black schools and starts talking this "we are gonna do this and we are gonna take over the whitehouse" i'm pretty sure he's not talking about his party. this is gonna be a ground breaking election either way, but if barack does get elected will it only be a half as grounbreaking because he is only half black? at least palin is 100% woman....as far as we know. (maybe the $150,000 wasn't for clothes. and there was more than just a conference in new york.)

i personally would want people to call me by my nickname and not my given name, even if i decided to foray into politics. (which is where i'd like to end up someday actually, but for the RIGHT reasons!) there are several reasons for this, one is i don't particularly like my given name. also, i'm a third, and i don't like my dad at all. okay, i don't know my dad at all. why would i want to go by a name given to me to carry on a tradition when there really is no tradition to carry on with no dad there? so i will not stop going by my nickname if the political career does happen to materialize. why would he?
if fellow politicians decided to call me by my given name it wouldn't bother me.

once again, if it's good enough for your friends and family why is it not good enough for a nation you want to lead? as soon as you get into politics you decided to go by your given name and for what reason? his campaign message is change right? i guess that meant change your name, not the country! maybe, like me he didn't like his dad? (i don't know much about barack's personal life.) but in my opinion, he more than likely did it to get the black vote, and the muslim vote too.

personally i don't care what color you are or what they call you, as long as you can lead this country in the right direction. take control away from corporations and put it back into the hands of the people. the lobbyist situation in washington is getting out of control. stop putting people that have the right to protest on terrorist watch lists. America is heading down a bad road indeed. Dark days. i believe that we will see civil war in my lifetime. i'm 29. if not mine, my kids for sure. and it's gonna take a lot more than a name, campaign slogan or anything else to get it done.

we need health care for everyone. we have to take the power from the large drug companies. i think that would help alleviate a lot of the economical problems that this country has. well obviously not as much now, thanks to all of this mortgage crap. where was washington then? oh yeah, they just gave them all of OUR money to bail them out. and maybe the can make some money out of this ordeal (but this is our government we are talking about, they did just add a paper dollar sign to the national deficit counter so they could use left-most display to add another number!) what took so long? that's America for you, one big corporation! it's disgusting and makes my stomach hurt.

not to mention we need education for everyone, immigration and taxes fixed (the irs still owes back taxes i believe). that's just to name a few. medicare and social security are set to run out soon. in the next couple of years (i can't remember, maybe '09 one will be paying out more than it is taking in and the other one will follow suit shortly). and by what, 2030 or whatever it was, maybe a little later, they will be out of money in the surplus for those programs. they knew it would fail when they setup social secuirty. WTF! thanks lbj. the whole insurance fiasco was probably one of the worst decisions in the history of america.

don't get me started on the prison system overhaul that needs to happen, as well as the reform of laws between the federal and state levels. especially drug laws (our favorite herb legalized being number one!) how is it that we can have state and federal laws that are in direct confliction?

maybe an eye for an eye mentality would help some there?

i'll stop ranting now. sorry. i'm just passionate about this country (i was a marine, and i've been around the world, i've seen some real sh*tholes and bogus governments.) it just pisses me off to see americans taken advantage of and lied to. and i hate seeing the seperation of classes expanding. there is enough money for everyone to live comfortably. but we have to do what they say when we are under there thumb.

if barack wins, he will be the first senator to become president since jfk if i'm not mistaken. and i think we all remember what happend to him.....

-shake

---

lol, i don't know shake, are you for or against?

Headshake, I'm not ignoring your valid points, I just don't have time to discuss any deeper- I gotta get moving; supposed to be slinging Polynesian cocktails in 5...4...3...2...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

it's like if Billy Joel decided to run for office under the name William
Joel, while it would in fact be his given name, it's not the name he
has always been known by and so, it would be an affectation and
therefore, dishonest.

---

Dude. It's the name on his drivers' license. How the heck is that dishonest? Not tracking... lol.

I'm concerned about substance over title. You want to pick an issue, this one is at the very BOTTOM of the importance barrel IMVHO.

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

Headshake, I'm not ignoring your valid points, I just don't have time to discuss any deeper- I gotta get moving; supposed to be slinging Polynesian cocktails in 5...4...3...2...

Dude. It's the name on his drivers' license. How the heck is that dishonest? Not tracking... lol.

I'm concerned about substance over title. You want to pick an issue, this one is at the very BOTTOM of the importance barrel IMVHO.

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet...

---

lol, i agree completely that his name is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

his name only came up as a side thing between Breukelen advocaat and i, here is the post i refer to

"Breukelen advocaat -- There is nothing wrong with calling Barack Obama by the name "Barry", but he's not known by this in his public life today and it can be confusing. I would think that "Barry" is the name his wife, family and friends call him."

and my response

"justanotherbozo -- Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
There is nothing wrong with calling Barack Obama by the name "Barry", but he's not known by this in his public life today and it can be confusing. I would think that "Barry" is the name his wife and family call him.


i call him that because that was his name until he entered politics.
to me, that makes it an affectation and vaguely dishonest.

my intent is also to be somewhat dismissive and derisive"

lol, i had no idea that would result in such a long discussion of his name.

Barack was not made famous under the name 'Barry'. So it is hardly being dishonest. It is a nickname between a smaller group of people. Now if it was a nickname that the whole country new him by and he ran with his real name instead of his nickname, then it may be dishonest. If that were the case, then I would suggest something like Barack 'Barry' Obama.

ROTFLMAO

Nice response.

Now that we've gone completely off topic, (Seems to be the typical republican defense) maybe we should go back to trying to figure out why a group of people would need over 20,000 each for a new wardrobe?

I'd imagine that the name "Barry" come into play when momma dumped lil' Barack off at grandma's doorstep to go romping back to Indonesia. (Whoops, he come from a POOR family right?) "This is my grandson, lil' Barack Hussein"; not at grandma's house! This is lil' Barry.;) Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure if his first name was Saddam grandma would have called him lil' Sammy.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

lol, i don't know shake, are you for or against?

---

i'm not republican or democrat. i'm a best person for the job person. i refuse to limit myself to a certain train of thought due to a title. but to answer your question bozo, against!

sorry to get off topic guys. and yeah, $150,000 is a bit excessive for clothing. did oprah take her shopping? they should just have donated that money and let her campaign in her "rags".

there needs to be some kind of cap to the amount of money parties can use to campaign. ridiculous.

-shake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headshake

sorry to get off topic guys. and yeah, $150,000 is a bit excessive for clothing. did oprah take her shopping?

---

Everybody wants a candidate that can relate to them in a fiscal sense and then when one comes along she's ignorant, etc.. MAYBE the reason that they bought the clothing is to keep her up with the million dollar men that are the other candidates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headshake

they should just have donated that money and let her campaign in her "rags".

---

Reminds me of the story about cheap Joe Biden's donations:

Gross Income Charity

1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995

Total $2,450,042 $3,690

But of course, in his words, it's patriotic to give.

Have a good one!:s4:

It's Palin's fault that she shouldn't have been so stupid to put it in the states tab from an ethical standpoint. This is a clear case of government waste. However there are certain procedures that she'd have to go through in order to spend excessively on the hotels and expenditures for her children. Someone authorized it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

you know, not for nothing but if the RNC hadn't invested in her
wardrobe, sure as shit, the media would be all over her for her
attire.

and considering how much the Dem's are spending on this campaign,
and the number of ACORN offices under investigation, it surprises me
anyone would want to talk about money. you think those suits of
Barry's are cheap?

---

here just too remind you where 150,000 of US taxpayers money went,
3 times more money than the majority of americans will ever make in thier entire life !
Sarah Palin: Hockey Mom with $150,000 Wardrobe - Associated Content

close windowThe latest breaking news, down the stretch in the campaign for leadership of the Free World, is that the Republican National Committee has spent $150,000 since Labor Day to keep Sarah Palin and her family looking sharp.

This an odd revelation. Palin primped herself up well enough to win the Alaska governor's election, obtaining her wardrobe from her own family budget. But the story must be true. This vital news first was reported by Politico.com, which is among the minority of political websites because it actually is accurate and balanced.

Palin's people issued no denials in response to the Politico.com account, no further decrying of the liberal media. It would be difficult, after all, to describe the media as "elite" after spending $150,000 on clothing and accessories and hair.

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella absorbed the first battering from the media after Politico.com released its report. She gravely told the assembled reporters, "The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," said Comella, not exactly forthcoming.

A more senior Palin spokeswoman, Tracey Schmidt, decided to bring the wardrobe issue out of the closet.

"With all the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," Schmitt said. This answer is oblivious to the fact that (a) such expenses would violate campaign finance law, and that (b) people who portray Palin as a down-to-earth breath of fresh air may question spending three times as much as an average family's total annual income.

"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign," Schmitt added. Now she's talking. Palin's loyalists are very, very loyal, and an auction might raise $15 million, much less $150,000.

pg2

Spending is documented on the Republican National Committee's own campaign finance reports, and so the liberal media did not make this up. The top line item is $75,062 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, which was the site of the GOP National Convention during the first week of September. Next comes $49,425 from Saks Fifth Avenue stores in New York City and St. Louis.

When people spend this much on clothes, don't they usually try them on themselves? However, such a shopping trip by Palin would have attracted media hordes, so somebody in the campaign must have taken her measurements and gone from there. Either that, or Tina Fey tried on the clothes.

Another $4,716 went for Palin's hair and makeup. Even the baby in the family was included, with a combined $250 spent at Pacifier and at Steiniauf & Stroller.

Give Politico.com credit for political balance. Palin was not singled out. Obama wears $4,000 suits and $300 ties, although there is no evidence that the Democratic National Committee foots the bill. Hillary Clinton was mocked for $1,500 hair-doos, and John Edwards for $400 haircuts. Even McCain himself has been striding in $520 Ferragamo leather shoes. And we may recall the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore abruptly and all too obviously began wearing earth tones in a quest to revamp his snobby image.

Amid all of this, the McCain campaign complains that it lacks competitive funds to keep up with Barack Obama's flood of television advertising. How many ads could $150,000 have purchased?

SOURCES

politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

nypost.com/seven/10222008/news/politics/shop_spree_sarahs_150g_party_clothes_134694.htm


I find it insulting, she outta be shame herselfish :twocents:

Whats that Sarah Palin is saying?! When they asked her about her wardrobe I thought it sounded like she said "Let them eat cake!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Everybody wants a candidate that can relate to them in a fiscal sense and then when one comes along she's ignorant, etc.. MAYBE the reason that they bought the clothing is to keep her up with the million dollar men that are the other candidates.



Reminds me of the story about cheap Joe Biden's donations:

Gross Income Charity

1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995

Total $2,450,042 $3,690

But of course, in his words, it's patriotic to give.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Now when Sarah Palin gives away all her RNC Valentino jackets and Gucci handbags to charity next year, she can claim her charitable donations are $150,000! Ha ha ha ha ha! Maybe Biden should see if the DNC can kick down some Ermenegeldo Zegna suits for him to pass on to Saint Vincent de Paul and boost his charity numbers for ya, P4B!

If anyone is interested in picking up some slightly used haute couture, I'd suggest the Wassila Goodwill sometime in mid November! You'll probably meet Tina Fey there looking for some great bargains that are sure to fit perfectly.

I was thinking that maybe Sarah Palin should try to get on the new Paris Hilton reality show on MTV, Paris Hilton's My New BFF. If Paris picked Sarah to be her new BFF, then maybe Paris could give Sarah some shopping tips so that she could learn to keep her expenses down a bit. I mean, Paris Hilton is filthy rich, but even she doesn't blow through $3000 a day on clothes, EVERY SINGLE DAY! Unlike a politician, a billionaire heiress has to live within her means! Ha ha ha ha ha! In Sarah Palin's case, BFF would stand for Buttload of Free Fashions!

I swear to God, if I had $150,000 to spend on clothes, it would last me more than 2 entire lifetimes. What the hell could it all be for? Really. Seriously. I am very curious about this. I want to know how a person could spend that much on clothes, even for an entire famly of people who have to look their very very best every single day. Maybe someone is running some kind of fake budget item thorugh Sarah's clothing expense account, and the money is really to buy weed for RNC accoutants. I certainly hope so.

I wonder if any of the "elites" spend $3,000 every day on clothes, or if that is only something that goes on in the "real America."

You can go to Wal*Mart and get a month's worth of professional looking outfits for under 10,000, so it's not a question of "She would have been made fun of" or anything like that, it's the gross contradiction of someone running as the average person who's been abducted from her hockey mom duties (she's been a politician for what, a decade? She's no longer anything close to a regular person anymore) to run for vice-president spends 150,000 of her party's money to feel like a rock star.

If I were a Republican donor, I'd be pissed. Really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I swear to God, if I had $150,000 to spend on clothes, it would last me more than 2 entire lifetimes. What the hell could it all be for? Really. Seriously. I am very curious about this.

---

I also wonder how much Obama has spent on them tailored suits he's always wearing. Seems funny that when it's about the RNC you find this type of thing as an "issue" but in regards to subjects like Rev. Wright and William Ayers you don't.:wtf:

........and still no mention of "Cheap Joe Bidens" charitable contributions.

Have a good one!:s4:

first, to veggi, ths money that was spent on her cloths wasn't
taxpayer money so it didn't cost you a dime unless you voluntarily
donated to the republican party.

also, she isn't keeping those cloths forever, nor is she just gonna
bag them up and toss them in the Goodwill bin. she gets to wear
them for a week and then thay are stored so they can be auctioned
off later. they will probably bring in more than they cost and that
money will be donated to charity.

lets try to be fair and understand that the Palins are the only ones
in this race that aren't millionaires.

oh yeah, Jaysin, if they had gone to Walmart and spent the entire
$150,000.00 they'd still look like rubes in the eyes of the media.

and happiest, why don't you eat cake, or maybe you
should stop eating cake

and anyone that wants to make an issue about her traveling with
her family should remember that she sold the former Governor's
private jet, i suppose she could have kept it and then no-one
would be talking about the cost of her having her family with her,
but that wouldn't have been the right thing for Alaskans.

and why is it that no-one here is outraged at what a cheap prick
Joe Biden is? think about it, out of 2.4 million, he gives $3,600.00,
what the fuck is that? i guess, in truth, he isn't very patriotic.

thanks for the heads up boss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I also wonder how much Obama has spent on them tailored suits he's always wearing. Seems funny that when it's about the RNC you find this type of thing as an "issue" but in regards to subjects like Rev. Wright and William Ayers you don't.:wtf:

........and still no mention of "Cheap Joe Bidens" charitable contributions.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

why dont you go to the dnc and show where obama and biden used campaign money to buy 150k worth of clothes

this thread is about waist of money not ayres or wright

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

why dont you go to the dnc and show where obama and biden used campaign money to buy 150k worth of clothes

this thread is about waist of money not ayres or wright

---

it wasn't 'campaign' money dude, and it wasn't taxpayer money
either, it was money donated to the RNC by people that want America
to remain free. and i guess you didn't bother to read the previous post
explaining how those cloths will be auctioned off for more than they cost,
with all proceeds going to charity. so it wasn't a waste.

oh, and just so you know, 'waist' is where you put your belt, and
'waste' is what it is reading your words