logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Palin's makeover, Appropriate use of party funds/public money?
Julian
post Oct 24 2008, 01:00 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Republican's spend $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe since her nomination only 2 months ago

This story has been given quite a bit of attention in the British media, but hasn't been mentioned yet on ad.gif as far as I can tell.

Now, image is certainly important, especially in personality-driven Presidential elections, and (as the linked article indicates) this is not the first time that candidates' spending on wardrobe or grooming has been open to question. Mrs Clinton's trouser suit (pant suit?), John Edwards' haircut and John McCain's loafers have all been subject to scrutiny.

And there is still a degree of sexism for all women in the public eye (for whatever reason); where a man might get away with wearing the same suit at several different public appearances, a woman is more usually expected to change her outfit for each one, and sometimes women in the public sphere get criticised for wearing the same outfit on more than one occasion (even if they are days or weeks apart), particularly by other women (most men wouldn't even notice smile.gif).

But even taking that into account, Mrs Palin seem to have spent significantly more than other candidates on her image, some of which may have been paid for by the public purse since McCain's decision to take public money for his campaign in return for spending limits.

QUOTE
$75,062 spent at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis
$41,850 spent in St Louis
$4,100 on make-up and hair consulting


Also, some of her spending in this category is tenuously linked to campaign requirements, at best.
QUOTE
$4,902 at Atelier, a men's clothing shop in New York
$92 on a romper suit and hat with ears


Presumably the men's clothing was for her husband, sons and soon-to-be son-in-law? I can sort of see that - maybe her teenage sons don't need to wear suits that often and so may not have one, or have grown out of the ones they do have. But isn't it more appropriate that she pays for these out of her own pocket, since I don't imagine the suits will be available to other Republican candidates after her family members have finished using them. And a romper suit and hat with ears? Does making her baby son look extra cute really need to be done at party/public expense??

Several commentators (quite possibly hostile ones) seem to think that Mrs Palin could have achieved much the same results for less than half these sums.

Questions for debate:
In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?

Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not?

Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else? Why, or why not?


This post has been edited by Julian: Oct 24 2008, 01:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 70)
Royucker
post Oct 27 2008, 03:34 PM
Post #61


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Delvy @ Oct 27 2008, 08:10 AM) *
QUOTE(Julian @ Oct 24 2008, 01:00 PM) *
Questions for debate:
In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?

Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not?

Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else? Why, or why not?


It was not wise to spend that level of money on the presentation of Gov. Palin. It was clear that this information would become public and whoever spent it was clearly disassociated from the general public and an awareness of the effect this kind of expenditure would have. Very dangerous. I think the expenditure that was made was done for the reasons of campaign image but in the current economic climate it was foolish and could have been achieved much much more cheaply and kept her in touch with the "hockey mom" much more.

Yes, candidates should be allowed to spend campiagn finance on campaign image; it is just as much part of the campaign as fliers, local talks or tv ads. But they should do it with some care and attention to the possible consequences.

AS to family? Hmmm, more complicated.... if they are "part of the campaign" then careful application of the resource may be appropriate. But it would have to be done with real real care. Justified, as it were.


If you want to talk about spending and greed, the Obama campaign raised $150 Million in Sept. they now have so much money that they are running out of good ideas on how to throw it away since they were caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters.
I went to the Obama site a couple of days ago and since have received several emails from the campaign, Michelle and the chosen one himself pleading with me to send juct another $5 more because we can take a chance...
Anyone that thinks that Joe six pack does not realize these people live in a different world that us regular folks is foolish. You may get a raise from a few of the bitter gun and god clingers on this expenditure but most reasonable folks understand that politicians and celebrities spend big, many watch to see who is wearing what at the Emmys or Oscars and oooh and awe as we hear about the $60, 000 dress Madonna uses for a house coat.
Once again, class envy in action right our of the democrat handbook
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Oct 27 2008, 04:12 PM
Post #62


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(royucker)
If you want to talk about spending and greed, the Obama campaign raised $150 Million in Sept. they now have so much money that they are running out of good ideas on how to throw it away since they were caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters.
I went to the Obama site a couple of days ago and since have received several emails from the campaign, Michelle and the chosen one himself pleading with me to send juct another $5 more because we can take a chance...
Anyone that thinks that Joe six pack does not realize these people live in a different world that us regular folks is foolish. You may get a raise from a few of the bitter gun and god clingers on this expenditure but most reasonable folks understand that politicians and celebrities spend big, many watch to see who is wearing what at the Emmys or Oscars and oooh and awe as we hear about the $60, 000 dress Madonna uses for a house coat.
Once again, class envy in action right our of the democrat handbook


Let's see, where to start...

1. The Obama campaign was caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters? Wow, that sounds scary! Perhaps you could provide a link to support this allegation. Your link will show clearly, I am sure, the proof that his campaign gave money to ACORN with the express intent of them signing up fabricated voters. And wait... I'll bet those evil ACORN folks flagged the false registrations just to rub our noses in it!

2. I love how right after you pull the old Democrat=elitist meme out of your hat, you excuse the elite spending of the McCain campaign. That's classic. You do realize that your logic, such as it is, would dictate you be equally disgruntled with both campaigns, right?

3. And the house of cards falls apart... it's common knowledge that increased voter turnout among the poorest segments of our society benefits the Democrats far more than the Republicans.

The fact is, both parties are run by wealthy interests and elites. With your little rant, though, I would have expected you'd be more supportive of the outsider son of an immigrant than the elitist son of an admiral whose actually been one of the Washington elite insiders for decades. Ah well. What a tangled web we weave...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Oct 27 2008, 07:28 PM
Post #63


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(quarkhead @ Oct 27 2008, 12:12 PM) *
QUOTE(royucker)
If you want to talk about spending and greed, the Obama campaign raised $150 Million in Sept. they now have so much money that they are running out of good ideas on how to throw it away since they were caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters.
I went to the Obama site a couple of days ago and since have received several emails from the campaign, Michelle and the chosen one himself pleading with me to send juct another $5 more because we can take a chance...
Anyone that thinks that Joe six pack does not realize these people live in a different world that us regular folks is foolish. You may get a raise from a few of the bitter gun and god clingers on this expenditure but most reasonable folks understand that politicians and celebrities spend big, many watch to see who is wearing what at the Emmys or Oscars and oooh and awe as we hear about the $60, 000 dress Madonna uses for a house coat.
Once again, class envy in action right our of the democrat handbook


Let's see, where to start...

1. The Obama campaign was caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters? Wow, that sounds scary! Perhaps you could provide a link to support this allegation. Your link will show clearly, I am sure, the proof that his campaign gave money to ACORN with the express intent of them signing up fabricated voters. And wait... I'll bet those evil ACORN folks flagged the false registrations just to rub our noses in it!

2. I love how right after you pull the old Democrat=elitist meme out of your hat, you excuse the elite spending of the McCain campaign. That's classic. You do realize that your logic, such as it is, would dictate you be equally disgruntled with both campaigns, right?



3. And the house of cards falls apart... it's common knowledge that increased voter turnout among the poorest segments of our society benefits the Democrats far more than the Republicans.

The fact is, both parties are run by wealthy interests and elites. With your little rant, though, I would have expected you'd be more supportive of the outsider son of an immigrant than the elitist son of an admiral whose actually been one of the Washington elite insiders for decades. Ah well. What a tangled web we weave...


I'll stand behind what i have said,
Item 1)
Investors Business Daily and ABC Investors Business Daily, for your reading pleasure:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...308358130652174
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons including inmates in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6049549
Some ACORN employees have been accused of submitting false voter registration forms including some signed `Mickey Mouse' or other fictitious characters.
Those voter registration cards have become the focus of fraud investigations in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri and at least five other states. Election officials in Ohio and North Carolina also recently questioned the group's voter forms.
C'mon, even you know that Mickey lives in Forida!

Item 2)
I am not excusing anything, I am just saying that "regular folks", you know those pitiful people that Obama says are clinging to their guns and God, understand that if they were pegged to run on one of these tickets they would also need a bit of make over. Palin might have a decent net worth and 150K salary now as governor but her back story, the one the democrat snobs use to tells us she is not qualified is very similar that that of many of us Joe Six packers. Community college, ran a small beauty shop, PTA etc...Sounds like a lot of good people I know on Main Street to me. I presume that now how someone dresses is a campaign issue, Obama will soon come out with a new plan to assure "universal wardrobe coverage" for those that can not afford to dress like he and Sarah. We stand as good a chance of getting that as we do in getting the same health care he enjoys as a senator. Really, it is all campaign spending, what is the difference between making your best impression by how you look or running another attack ad saying that McCain is George Bush II.

Item 3)
I am not really sure where you came up with this; I did not say anything about the poorest segments of our society. I presume you mean those who do not pay taxes but get refund checks whenever the government wants to try to buy us off. I guess I would vote Democrat too if I wanted something for nothing. I mean the work a day Joes like me, the ones who will wind up paying for all this crap Obama wants to do when it is said and done. Politicians can say what they want but we all know who pays the bills in this country.


"The fact is, both parties are run by wealthy interests and elites. With your little rant, though, I would have expected you'd be more supportive of the outsider son of an immigrant than the elitist son of an admiral whose actually been one of the Washington elite insiders for decades. Ah well. What a tangled web we weave..."

I'll take the man who has demonstrated time and time again that he has what it take to do the heavy lifting any day over the guy that has been nothing but a professional politician.

Now let us be honest You and I know, this guy Obama could care less about the so called "working families" of America once they have cast their votes. If he did, he would not be playing one group against another, he would not be trying to introduce socialism under the guise of "health care for everyone" If he really cared about the people of this country he would be doing the hard work of learning, experiencing and buttressing himself to be a good president one day when he is ready. I am afraid that people are so influenced by personality anymore that we have made ourselves blind to what could happen to us in the next years and scares me greatly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Oct 27 2008, 08:00 PM
Post #64


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Royucker)
I'll stand behind what i have said,
Item 1)
Investors Business Daily and ABC Investors Business Daily, for your reading pleasure:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...308358130652174
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons including inmates in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6049549
Some ACORN employees have been accused of submitting false voter registration forms including some signed `Mickey Mouse' or other fictitious characters.
Those voter registration cards have become the focus of fraud investigations in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri and at least five other states. Election officials in Ohio and North Carolina also recently questioned the group's voter forms.
C'mon, even you know that Mickey lives in Forida!


But you said Obama's campaign was "caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters." That was your allegation. From the evidence we have, people who were contracted by ACORN have made fraudulent registrations. Which ACORN has in most cases flagged for the FEC. I read through your articles, but didn't see where there was any evidence that Obama payed ACORN to "fabricate voters."

I was going to go back point for point, but realized we'd be taking this thread even further off-topic. I'd be happy to discuss any of these issues in the appropriate thread. Suffice it to say that in my first post in this debate, I defended the spending. I feel that by complaining about it we are reinforcing a double-standard wherein females in the public eye are scrutinized more for style than substance, where men can get away with a couple of black suits. If Clinton were the Democratic candidate, she'd be doing the same thing, because sadly, that's what women have to do in our society.

I can think of far more compelling, substantive reasons that Sarah Palin was a horrible choice for VP, than her wardrobe and anything adjunct to it.

And as I said, we can discuss your penchant for conspiracy theories, your lack of understanding of socialism, and your misconceptions of taxation in other threads. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Oct 27 2008, 09:02 PM
Post #65


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(quarkhead @ Oct 27 2008, 04:00 PM) *
QUOTE(Royucker)
I'll stand behind what i have said,
Item 1)
Investors Business Daily and ABC Investors Business Daily, for your reading pleasure:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...308358130652174
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons including inmates in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6049549
Some ACORN employees have been accused of submitting false voter registration forms including some signed `Mickey Mouse' or other fictitious characters.
Those voter registration cards have become the focus of fraud investigations in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri and at least five other states. Election officials in Ohio and North Carolina also recently questioned the group's voter forms.
C'mon, even you know that Mickey lives in Forida!


But you said Obama's campaign was "caught paying ACORN to fabricate voters." That was your allegation. From the evidence we have, people who were contracted by ACORN have made fraudulent registrations. Which ACORN has in most cases flagged for the FEC. I read through your articles, but didn't see where there was any evidence that Obama payed ACORN to "fabricate voters."

I was going to go back point for point, but realized we'd be taking this thread even further off-topic. I'd be happy to discuss any of these issues in the appropriate thread. Suffice it to say that in my first post in this debate, I defended the spending. I feel that by complaining about it we are reinforcing a double-standard wherein females in the public eye are scrutinized more for style than substance, where men can get away with a couple of black suits. If Clinton were the Democratic candidate, she'd be doing the same thing, because sadly, that's what women have to do in our society.

I can think of far more compelling, substantive reasons that Sarah Palin was a horrible choice for VP, than her wardrobe and anything adjunct to it.

And as I said, we can discuss your penchant for conspiracy theories, your lack of understanding of socialism, and your misconceptions of taxation in other threads. thumbsup.gif

b]Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")[/b][/b]

OK, you take issue with my assertion that "Obama was caught paying ACRON to fabricate voters"

1) Obama paid Acorn "to register new voters"
2) Acorn, who Obama knows well, has a history of voting fraud problems
3) Obama tried to hide these associations by disguising them in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
4) Now you try to absolve the group by saying that employees of ACORN did all these shady things but that was not the group, state after state, false registration after false registration- would you give Bush, Cheney, and Rove the same pass?

You know, often when I am sitting around reading in the evening, I will hear our three year old in the kitchen making noises that have the distinct sound of the cookie jar being opened. I will say, Liz, what are you doing in there? Oh, nothing she says I'm not doing anything at all.
If Obama was so proud of the valuable work being done by ACORN, why would he lie about it in an FEC filing? Anyone for cookies?

As for conspiracy theories, I have offered none.
Socialism is for Europeans,
Taxation is only paid by those who can not afford to cheat the system

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Oct 27 2008, 10:27 PM
Post #66


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?


I have yet to read this question answered in a straight forward fashion by any McCain/Palin partisans on this board. Ducking and attacking doesn't justify it by any means. How can you argue that she is maximizing her campaign's money when she is being decked out to the tune of what a lot of people make per year? mad.gif

It was not "wise" at all and if anything, it goes to show that the rest of us should be concerned about whether or not the issues we face can be adequately understood by someone who has 13 kitchens, a fleet of cars, clothing sprees to the tune of what most middle class people earn in this country, if not more.


QUOTE
Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not?


I don't believe it's right, that should come from a person's own money and what they do for a living. If you are a paid governor or senator, then I could see that being justified through your salary. Certainly no one is arguing that elected officials should be dressed like schlumps, but in my state, where state senators earn $19,000 a year, they do reasonably well. I'm not certain why they couldn't live according to that standard.

QUOTE
Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else? Why, or why not?


This post has been edited by nebraska29: Oct 27 2008, 10:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kalabus
post Oct 28 2008, 08:06 AM
Post #67


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 279
Member No.: 2,117
Joined: January-3-04

From: Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



(1)In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?

It wasn't wise because of the image of her that her handlers were trying to craft, and certainly not after all the Joe the Plumber nonsense.

By itself, absent of other actions, and GOP campaign tactics, was it a big deal? No.

The Democrats spent how much on green food whatever at their convention? I imagine both parties are loaded with stupid expenditures.

I remember Hillary Clinton blowing like 140 million in a single month in the primaries, huge pizza bills included.

At the very start of this campaign, the right had a gameplan to paint Obama as an elitist, because he ate arugula, because of the sociological observation about people "clinging to guns and religion" and when society stops working on their behalf and they feel helpless (the same exact argument he made on Charlie Rose in 2004, the son of an anthropologist)

The goal was to paint McCain and his wife as normal and regular folks, while Barack and Michelle were Ivy League elitists. They did the same with Kerry, and his windsailing, and trips to France and Norway as a kid, and his rich wife...I guess they thought the theme would transfer no matter reality.

I notice that this has all vanished.

Why?

-McCain thinks someone is middle class until they are making 5 million a year
-He wears 500 dollar pairs of shoes
-His wife wears 250,000 dollar dresses
-He bought his liberal daughter a 200,000 dollar condo
-He was born into a family of bigtime admirals, went to Annapolis where he finished 894 of 899, though I doubt his name really made him flunking out possible
-His wife is a brewery heiress of some sort, worth 100 million dollars
-They have a private jet
-They own 13 cars
-They own 7 houses, a number so high that McCain literally couldn't even keep track of it

As opposed to the Obamas
-Barack was raised at times by a single mother on welfare, later in a two bedroom apartment with his grandparents
-Michelle was raised lower-middle-class, in a hard scrabble home
-Obama attended prep school on scholorship
-Obama was paying off his student loans from Harvard just 5 years ago
-Obama gives his daughters 1 dollar a week allowances
-Obama has 1 car...a hybrid
-Obama has 1 house

So, it was the GOP who wanted to pit this social strata war, about Obamas being the Ivy League elitists and the McCain's everyday people. Picking Palin was part of that.... when it started looking ridiculous to assert for the Mccains. She has played up her small town regular background and intellect, they are the party trying to claim Joe the Plumber.

They created the very environment that makes this a gaffe instead of a yawner.

It matters because they made it matter.

It also matters a little more because of the state of the GOP. The GOP literally has dozens of house seats hanging in the balance......injecting 100k into these races, at this point in time, seems like money wiser spent for the sake of the party.


(2)Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not? Probably not, but it's a part of the game. Both parties have all sorts of whacked out expenditures each year. I don't think it's a big enough deal for a "why or why not" though. They are running for Prez and VP, it's not like they signed up to get some goody bags. I don't see this as sampler abuse, it's obvious nobody gets in this for the campaign perks. We have huge elections here, we are just going to have huge cross country circuses for several months....it's all too big, mediatainment, and fast to go budget with clothes and hair.

Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else? Why, or why not?]

No, I don't think so. They are not elected officials, or running for any elected office. I don't see why campaign money would be allocated for them. However, in the world of waste, I don't think it means much and don't think it symbollically speaks to waste either....it's just not enough money (generally) to really mean anything within the 10's of millions of campaign dollars that these big campaigns have.

This post has been edited by kalabus: Oct 28 2008, 08:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 28 2008, 07:07 PM
Post #68


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Just thought I'd chime in with a few observations before leaving the thread for good. I agree with Quarkhead that female politicians face ridiculous image expectations, but disagree with Moif that male politicians don't face similar pressures. From retarded nativist demands that Obama wear flag pins as proof of his allegiance, to Gary Hart's playboy image in the 80s and the media paying attention to the hole in the sole of Adlai Stevenson's shoe in the 50s, male politicians have to feed the mob's hunger for reassuring imagery without igniting its prejudices too; we just use different adjectives to tear them down to our level. Clinton did not lose the Democratic primaries because she looked frumpy. She lost because Democrats rejected the Old Guard. They don't know they nominated the Old Guard.

The Politico article makes expense comparisons between Palin's wardrobe/hair/makeup and McCain advisors. The amount of money spent on these advisors is also inexcusable in my opinion. It reminds me of CEOs making obscene money for basically sucking up to Washington and/or driving the marketing department. No one is worth thousands of dollars every week unless they find a cure for cancer or discover a flawless renewable energy source. I guess what I'm saying is if you want a campaign doomed to failure, nominate me for POTUS. I wouldn't survive in an atmosphere that rewards marketing-driven ideologies and marketing-based campaign strategies.

I've got this to say to people bemoaning the cool $2 million Obama is spending on the inaguaration party: It's too late for outrage. The last inaguaration party was extremely ostentatious. Paying creepy Christian rock singers to put on a show doesn't make it any less so, and Bush Sr. wasn't better. He spent $1 million on his inauguration.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Oct 28 2008, 08:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 28 2008, 09:49 PM
Post #69


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
So, it was the GOP who wanted to pit this social strata war, about Obamas being the Ivy League elitists and the McCain's everyday people. Picking Palin was part of that.... when it started looking ridiculous to assert for the Mccains. She has played up her small town regular background and intellect, they are the party trying to claim Joe the Plumber.


Come on lease. None of this comes close to people like Kerry and Ted Kennedy who could buy and sell McCain and Obama 10 times over and not notice.

Clothes and campaign expenses mean squat. The real issues are more related to who the candidates are and what we expect of them.

As lesly has pointed out here Obama plans on big spending for an inauguration party and that will only be the beginning.

Hold on to your wallet because he and his friends in Congress will make Bush look like a cheapskate imo.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
R21C
post Nov 26 2008, 12:36 AM
Post #70


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 200
Member No.: 6,870
Joined: November-24-06

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Isn't it terrible, wasting so much money while the country falls apart in so many ways.

Obama will be the first, but does he really need to spend so much. Thats it matters in the end doesn't a bit of glitter, what a load of crap.

W. had tomatos thrown at his car LOL tongue.gif Wasn't the election a bit of fraud, total really. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 26 2008, 02:19 AM
Post #71


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Now that the election is over, I would suggest to the Republicans that if they actually want their rising star to be a major force and a probability to ascend to national office, they might spend less time and money dressing her (and it must be fun--who wouldn't want a life-sized Barbie doll to dress and put makeup on?) and either spend the money or encourage Palin to spend the money on improving her education about things like, I dunno, the Constitution, history, geography, and so forth. It really doesn't matter what kind of positive image you project if it dissolves as soon as you open your mouth.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 26 2008, 02:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 19th, 2018 - 07:54 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.