Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Fiscal responsibility? Elitism?

The McCain/Palin campaign spent $150k of contributor dollars (or was that public financing dollars?) to spruce up Sarah Palin's wardrobe for the campaign.

$150,000. That's "pay off the mortgage" money for folks outside California. It's half our mortgage.

Palin's make-up artist is the highest-paid member of the McCain/Palin campaign staff, coming in at over $22k for the first two weeks of October.

$22,000. That's "replace a crappy old car" money with change left over.

I understand that Palin has to look good for the camera; it wouldn't do for a former beauty queen to repeat Nixon's mistake of 1960. This, though, is irresponsibility on a grand scale (by "little peoples'" standards). It's so far beyond John Edwards' $400 haircuts and Hilary Clinton's $3,000 beautician visits it's not funny, and it's all for less than 8 weeks of the end of the campaign.

Yet some people trust these candidates with their tax money.


Oct. 24th, 2008 08:15 pm (UTC)
And where has that $150K come from? It doesn't seem to be money from the McCain/Palin campaign but rather from the Republican National Committee. So, perhaps it's not "public campaign money" being used after all. The stories about this aren't clear on the point yet.

It's still contributor dollars.

Has anyone asked Obama about his choices in clothing or is this a question only fitting for _female_ candidates? I don't seem to recall Hillary getting roasted over her changes in styles and outfits as her campaign went on. Double standard here? Oh gosh! Heaven forbid!

You lack the skills to do basic research, or to remember the last few elections (or even the last few months). The busiest "reporter" on the "haircut beat" is conservative blogger Matt Drudge.

Hilary Clinton's appearance was regular "news" during the primary. Rush Limbaugh said "Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" The Guardian featured a column titled "Why does Hilary Clinton wear such bad clothes?"

You're also wrong that this kind of attention is only for female candidates.

Al Gore took hits when he changed the colors he was wearing in his campaign.

Bill Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards each took hits for expensive haircuts (although Edwards' "expensive" haircuts would take over 7 years to total up to Palin's spending spree).

McCain took a hit for expensive Ferragamo shoes.

Investigation of Obama and DNC records show no similar spending of campaign funds on personal wardrobe.
Oct. 24th, 2008 08:42 pm (UTC)

All this does is drive home how irrelevant the issue is.

There's damn all as far as substance here. The money came from the RNC. Define "contributor" there. Palin says the clothes don't belong to her and she has to give them back when done. Is that normal? Is that par for the course? Is that bullshit?

Edward's $400 dollar haircuts were clearly with donations to his campaign and thus he got nailed for that. The Palin wardrobe? It's still not clear.

In today's media age appearance counts. Dick Nixon learned that to his chagrin when he decided to forgo the expensive makeup treatment that JFK got before their televised speech. As a result, Nixon looked the worse on camera and those who saw him judged him the loser. Those who only heard the debate on radio - where his visual appearance was irrelevant - judged him the winner.

So, since the all politicians have paid attention to looking good on camera.

Yeah, $150K buys a lot more of that looking good stuff than most of us will ever buy for ourselves in our lifetime. Considering how much the media has focused on every minute aspect of her and her appearance I'm hardly surprised the professionals at the RNC figured Palin was do for a make-over. Whoop-de-do.

Most of the other candidates (all of the other candidates, actually) are either multi-millionaires in their own right or have personal net worths greater than the governor of Alaska. So?

I remember the hue and cry and President Carter went so far as to actually change the side on which he parted his hair!

Sorry Andy, just not seeing the fire here.

I will admit though, that if the Democrats keep shooting off such manufactured outrage on stuff like this they'll just further alienate the potential Democrat voters who are damn tired of such incessant attacks on Palin. So, in that regard, tales like this only help the GOP.

Oct. 24th, 2008 09:35 pm (UTC)
Um. Edwards paid that haircut out of pocket. Not from donated moneys. Also the other candidates have to dress THEMSELVES from their own pockets.

But then, if you're someone who charges the state of Alaska should pay the governor's babysitting bill on top of her salary....
Oct. 24th, 2008 09:45 pm (UTC)
Actually, he repaid the campaign for those haircuts. It's a sloppy case.
Oct. 24th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
The money came from the RNC. Define "contributor" there.

Are you saying the RNC has a magic money fountain? Perhaps they've got their own printing press that spits out dollars? Last I heard, individuals and businesses contributed the money that the national committees used to operate.

The RNC is subject to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fiance Reform Act. In Sec 323.A.1, national committees are explicitly listed as being subject to the act. Sec 313.B.2 lists clothing purchases as being a prohibited conversion.

It's not about Palin's appearance. It's about McCain's appearance. It appears they're violating a law that McCain championed and has his name on it. It's about McCain & Palin's hypocrisy.

Latest Month

February 2014

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek