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: 2,941
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   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Ted
post Oct 24 2008, 01:46 PM
Post #2


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

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

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



QUOTE
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?


Another media driven attack on Palin. Do we know how much Obama has spent? Did anyone even ask?

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


The candidate is the representative of the Party so like other expenses this is appropriate. The other factor is that Palin did not make over 2 million last year as Obama did.

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


All their campaign expenses should be paid for by the campaign. Why would it be otherwise certainly it is legal and appropriate. The cloths go to charity after the election.

And again lets ask where is the MEDIA on Obama in this issue. Why is it we only hear about Palin . hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 02:05 PM
Post #3


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted)
Another media driven attack on Palin.

Another appeal to liberal media victimhood.

QUOTE(Ted)
Do we know how much Obama has spent? Did anyone even ask?

Is anything unusual about Obama's spending?
QUOTE(The Caucus Blog)
Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCains presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCains chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staff member. It was Amy Strozzi, who was identified by the Washington Post this week as Gov. Sarah Palins traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Link

This was from a required FEC filing, of you want to grab Obama's and compare, have at it.

This is like Edward's $500 haircuts, it's unusual.

QUOTE(Ted)
The candidate is the representative of the Party so like other expenses this is appropriate. The other factor is that Palin did not make over 2 million last year as Obama did.

Oh, she's plenty rich enough.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 24 2008, 02:11 PM
Post #4


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

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

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



QUOTE
Oh, she's plenty rich enough.


Oh, she's plenty rich enough.

Her family income (166K) is a fraction of even Michelle Obama (over 350K) so spare I please. And how much did the campaign pay for cloths for barrack and Michelle? Does anyone even know?

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 24 2008, 02:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 02:14 PM
Post #5


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 24 2008, 09:11 AM) *
QUOTE
Oh, she's plenty rich enough.


Oh, she's plenty rich enough.

Her family income (166K) is a fraction of even Michelle Obama (over 350K)– so spare I please. And how much did the campaign pay for cloths for barrack and Michelle? Does anyone even know?

Again, they have required FEC filings. The information is public.


Estimates Show Sarah Palin's Assets Top $1M


This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 24 2008, 02:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 24 2008, 02:15 PM
Post #6


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



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?

She's gorging at the trough. Yet another huge mistake by the Republicans. Palin has become a liability. She's Dan Quayle with breasts.

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

I think a reasonable amount is appropriate, but it should be a low, per diem kind of number. These people are out there every day, moving every hour, it seems - I don't see how a normal wardrobe could handle that. The big mistake was in the embarassingly large amount. It shows Palin is all style, no substance. A former beauty queen and weatherbabe. She never should have been considered for VP. And if anyone who gave John Edwards a hard time for buying $400 haircuts with his own money doesn't hate this just as much, well, you are a partisan hack.

In contrast, one photo of Obama stands out in my mind (I wish I could find it now): somewhere early in his campaigning, someone caught a shot of Obama buying lunch in some cafeteria where he was speaking, tray in hand. Not surrounded by his staff or bodyguards, but just getting a cheap lunch among the regular schmos.

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

I think the campaign is OK paying for normal per diem types of expenses. Her husband is getting too much from the campaign. And her family soaked Alaska for way too much when she was governor. I think the cost of her clothes, over the reasonable amount I mentioned above, should be taxed as income.

This post has been edited by Jaime: Oct 24 2008, 05:25 PM
Reason for edit: Edited re: physiology terminology
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 24 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #7


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

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 24 2008, 10:14 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 24 2008, 09:11 AM) *
QUOTE
Oh, she's plenty rich enough.


Oh, she's plenty rich enough.

Her family income (166K) is a fraction of even Michelle Obama (over 350K)– so spare I please. And how much did the campaign pay for cloths for barrack and Michelle? Does anyone even know?

Again, they have required FEC filings. The information is public.

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846372,00.html" target="_blank">
Estimates Show Sarah Palin's Assets Top $1M</a>

Yes assets which includes her house and everything the family owns. The family income is 166K a year and Michelle Obama makes over 300,000 and their family income in over 2,000,000 their assets are higher as well.

Compared to most senators Palin is a pauper.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 24 2008, 03:55 PM
Post #8


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 24 2008, 11:38 AM) *
Yes assets which includes her house and everything the family owns. The family income is 166K a year and Michelle Obama makes over 300,000 and their family income in over 2,000,000 their assets are higher as well.

Compared to most senators Palin is a pauper.


Good point, Ted. I guess it was smart to spend $150,000 of donor contributions on her clothes after all. Because she represents the little guy, the one who works for a living. Joe the Plumber. They'll understand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 04:00 PM
Post #9


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 24 2008, 10:38 AM) *
Yes assets which includes her house and everything the family owns. The family income is 166K a year and Michelle Obama makes over 300,000 and their family income in over 2,000,000 their assets are higher as well.

Compared to most senators Palin is a pauper.

From the article:
QUOTE(Time)
The Palins' total income last year was split almost evenly between Sarah Palin's white-collar job and her husband's blue-collar work. Sarah Palin's salary as governor was $125,000; Todd Palin took in $46,790 as a part-time oil production operator for BP Alaska in Prudhoe Bay, plus $46,265 in commercial fishing income and $10,500 in Iron Dog snowmachine race winnings. These figures do not include nearly $17,000 in per diem payments Palin received for 312 nights spent in her own home since she was elected governor; she also has received $43,490 to cover travel costs for her husband and children.

In addition, each member of the Palin family received $1,654 in state oil royalties paid to all Alaskans.

The Palins' assets seem enviable: a half-million-dollar home on a lake with a float-plane at the dock, two vacation retreats, commercial-fishing rights worth an estimated $50,000 or more and an income last year of at least $230,000. That compares to a median income of $64,333 for Alaskans and $50,740 for Americans in 2007, according to the Census Bureau.

She's nobody's pauper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 24 2008, 04:11 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



I have been searching to try and determine just exactly what "qualified campaign expenses" are according to the F.E.C. In typical government fashion, the phrase comes up hundreds of times in various documents, but I have yet to find a real definition (this is why lawyers should be barred from becoming legislators--we get legalese and gobbledeegook rather than real legislation in simple langueage, a problem Thomas Jefferson foresaw). The closest I came was:

QUOTE
Qualified campaign expenses are defined in the Matching Payment Act at 26 U.S.C. 9032(9)(A) as those incurred by a candidate, or by his authorized committee, in connection with his campaign for nomination forelection.


Given that, as long as these clothes were worn at campaign events, then I think they qualify. Quite frankly, the amount of money made by the candidate is not even relevant--nowhere in the definition does it state "this means expenses that the candidate could not otherwise pay for out of personal funds." In fact, restrictions are placed on spending personal funds, to I believe $50,000. So, Palin could not have made these purchases with personal funds even if she had the money, as they would have exceeded the limit.

So, I think these expenses are obviously documented (one of the qualifications), and seem to meet the basic requirement of being connected to the campaign. Therefore, there's no legal issue--and if there is, there is already a process in place to examine that. No one here has referenced an FEC complaint on file or an ongoing investigation into these expenses, which would be the first steps into any official review. So, as there is no current legal issue, this is purely a campaign issue--and that indeed seems to be the focus of responses here. I do think it is relevant, if one is going to disucss one campaign's clothing expenses, to do that in comparison with the other campaign's similar expenses. No data seems to exist for Obama's expenses here (biased reporting once again?), so there's no relevant comparison. Personally, I find the amount to be a bit large, but also understandable. In the grand scheme of things, $150,000 on attire during a multi-million dollar campaign probably only makes sense. Image, as they say, is everything, and that is more true in this campaign than in any other that I remember. It is all about electability, and given concerns already raised regarding Palin's suitability for the position, the campaign is well justified in doing what it can to ensure she looks as 'Presidential' as possible. Consider what the impact would be if she were to attend all these events in 'shoddy' clothing--the entire campaign would suffer. Being governor of Alaska, I'll go out on a limb and claim she probably doesn't have the same wardrobe as, say, the governor of New York (or a lawyer from Chicago) might have on hand, so addressing that probably would have been of primary importance to the campaign.

QUOTE(Julian)
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.


Julian...are campaign ads (the primary expense) available to other candidates after this campaign has finished using them? What about plane tickets, meals, other event expenses, etc.? There is no expectation that ANY of these expenses are for things to be reused later, is there? They are for this campaign only. I suspect there might even be restrictions on using anything prvovided for using these funds outside of the campaign.

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 think it was a necessary expense, given the importance of image in this campaign. It probably will create a political issue that needs to be addressed--it is quite typical of politics today to focus on such triviality rather than, oh, say, the current financial crisis with $Trillions at stake world-wide (not a slam on the thread, but on the focus of media and the public at large). I suspect Palin was told to go 'shopping' and get an appropriate wardrobe--if I were on the campaign staff, I certainly would have done so had I seen any candidate needing help in that area.

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

Absolutely. Image is probably the single most important aspect of the campaign. Spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning while dressed shoddily is, in fact, just plain stupid. It is certainly part of the campaign to create and maintain the desired image, and clothing is certainly a large part of that. Put yourself in the same situation. If you were tagged with becoming part of the campaign, would you really think it a fair expectation that you would need to take out a second mortgage just to dress the part for campaign purposes? I suspect 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? Yes, but obviously to a lesser degree than the candidate themselves. Family members certainly appear in public events during the campaign, so their image is important as well

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 24 2008, 04:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 04:16 PM
Post #11


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Hobbes)
In the grand scheme of things, $150,000 on attire during a multi-million dollar campaign probably only makes sense.

In the course of 2 months?

On clothes?

That's almost three times more than most people make in a year, on clothes.

The highest paid member of the McCain campaign over the last 2 weeks was Palin's makeup artist.

That it not politics as usual.

Sure image is important, it's not 150K of important. Not when the same end could have been accomplished for far far far (far....) less.

QUOTE(Hobbes)
No data seems to exist for Obama's expenses here (biased reporting once again?), so there's no relevant comparison.

FEC filings are public if I'm not mistaken. Obama's finances are up there there just aren't unusual.

Again i draw the parallel to Edwards' $500 haircut. No idea what Bush spent on his hair, but it wasn't reported probably because it wasn't unusual.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 24 2008, 04:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 24 2008, 04:28 PM
Post #12


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 24 2008, 09:46 AM) *
Another media driven attack on Palin. Do we know how much Obama has spent? Did anyone even ask?

And again let€™s ask €“ where is the MEDIA on Obama in this issue. Why is it we only hear about Palin €€€. hmmm.gif


Fair question. Here's the answer from Politico.com, source of the original story:

A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.
link

As usual, when faced with a McCain/Palin faux pas, Ted falls back on his standard rap, "But what about Barack Obama?! This is unfair. It's a double standard!"

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.


$75,000 at Neiman-Marcus in Minneapolis? blink.gif Talk about shop 'til ya drop.

Don't they have a Target or Wal-Mart in Minneapolis? That's one hell of a shopping spree! I bet the store closed early and they gave the staff the rest of the day off after Palin left.

So when McCain plucked Palin from Alaska, she was obviously a hot mess. Poor girl needed some clothes with a few designer labels hanging on it.

Kind of makes you wonder if the Republican National Committee could have spent some of that money on maybe doing something they're supposed to be doing like, electing Republicans?

Oh, and look----who was the highest paid staffer on the McCain campaign in the first two weeks of October? Sarah Palin's makeup girl who was paid $22,000 for the heavy lifting. link


This post has been edited by nighttimer: Oct 24 2008, 04:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Oct 24 2008, 04:42 PM
Post #13


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes?

No, it wasn't - regardless of the economic climate. Ted is missing the point on this one - though I can't say I'm astonished by that turn of events. McCain and Palin have been attempting to portray themselves as populists, the candidates that appeal to Joe Sixpack (a.k.a. The Plumber), concerned about the middle class, and all the rest of the fairy tale. A clothing allowance of $150,000 runs counter to that image.

It doesn't matter how much Obama spends - he is, after all, "an elitist". People expect Democrats to spend $400 on haircuts, right? If the GOP is going to criticize Obama for his "celebrity" status, one of their own candidates probably shouldn't be spending like Britney Spears on meth. Okay, a Hollywood type like Nancy Reagan might get away with it, but a hockey mom? Perhaps Palin should change her name to Peron...

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 looks like someone is gorging at the trough, though probably the campaign more than Palin herself. Then again, she didn't say "No, thanks - I'm a maverick", did she? We're told, of course, that all of her pricey prt--porter gear will eventually find its way into a Goodwill Industries bin or something (though I doubt anyone will ever verify whether that happens or not - especially if McCain loses), but I don't see how one can "contribute" several thousand dollars (or tens of thousands of dollars?) in used make-up and hairstyling. And I somehow doubt that Amy Strozzi is going to donate her exorbitant wages to the Salvation Army.

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

For PR reasons alone, they probably shouldn't. Or, if they do, it should be in keeping with the budget of their constituents. Apparently, Palin's wardrobe allowance for one month exceeds the cost of Joe the Plumber's house by more than $20,000. What kind of message does that send?

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

I suppose campaign contributions can be spent however the campaign sees fit. If they make the decision to spend outrageous amounts of money on a candidate's spouse and kids, though, they should be prepared to face the consequences. Compared to most senators, the Palins may be paupers, but compared to most voters, they are decidedly not. Never mind $166,000 per annum: if I made that kind of money for even one annum, I could clothe myself and my family for a decade - in fact, I'm still wearing the clothes bought during the couple of years (back in Ireland) in which we did make six figures - without relying on hand-outs from campaign contributors.

I guess "redistribution of wealth" is okay when only one family benefits. Freakin' socialists. tongue.gif


This post has been edited by Wertz: Oct 24 2008, 05:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 24 2008, 05:16 PM
Post #14


********
'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



When Palin told a Henderson, Nevada crowd that women "need equal pay for equal work and not just be a talking point", pointing out that McCain pays women on his staff more than Obama, I have to admit I lacked the conservative brand of common sense that would enable me to realize makeup artists can change the world with one stroke of powder concealer at a time. (Voting for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act must be a talking point. Not being a fairweather feminist I wouldn't know better, or have an inkling of what's really good for me.)

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?
The campaign has to balance these two. They didn't, and I'm not sure they care, knowing their campaign spending records were public. Some might say that McCain going back on a stated principle is more proof of maverickiness, as opposed to being a flip-flopper or desperate candidate.

Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else?
Yeah, they should, but it's the amount that's been spent on the Palins in a two-month timeframe that is excessive as all hell. They're not showing any sense of proportion. We're facing an economic crises, or is that already so yesterday? The largest income gap since the Gilded Age, skepticism that inflation is higher than reported and people can't keep up, incredible public and personal debt. Nothing major, I guess. Damn. I'm envious. I'd love to sign up for a failed campaign and get a stunningly beautiful new wardrobe out of it.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Oct 24 2008, 05:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 24 2008, 05:51 PM
Post #15


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 24 2008, 08:46 AM) *
QUOTE
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?


Another media driven attack on Palin. Do we know how much Obama has spent? Did anyone even ask?

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


The candidate is the representative of the Party so like other expenses this is appropriate. The other factor is that Palin did not make over 2 million last year as Obama did.

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


All their campaign expenses should be paid for by the campaign. Why would it be otherwise “ certainly it is legal and appropriate. The cloths go to charity after the election.

And again let ask where is the MEDIA on Obama in this issue. Why is it we only hear about Palin . hmmm.gif


I hate to say this but I had a feeling this could happen with Sarah. That she could be effectively labeled that is.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...20&start=20

This is a quote of mine from September the 4th at the link above (post #22) in reference to Sarah Palin.......

Who knows, those with the time and the will just might find something they can effectively use, after all thats why the left is so busy digging right now. In fact I wouldn't put it past the Keith Olberman's in the world to find or even force something that works, anything that works! This time last year McCain was seen by the left as a likable moderate willing to reach across the isle, today he's McBush. McCains nomination explains that stab in the back, and look at what happened to Mike Huckabee, that man was well excepted and very compelling to both sides. I can even quote the member Nighttimer of all people saying he liked Huckabee. You know what the key argument was against this man, that worked? His religious convictions, and a 2 sentence reference to the constitution! Thats how he became in the eyes of some nothing more than a (right wing religious nut).

I'm not convinced the far left will not find an effective arguing point that helps them label Sarah Palin, they are trying, everyone knows that. My question is when they find their key arguing point, how hypocritical will it be this time? An argument about her family perhaps, as some of the same people seem so dedicated to calling Obama's family "out of bounds", or perhaps they will pull off the argument of "lack of experience" even as they rally in support of the most inexperienced presidential pick in modern history.................



When I wrote this it was before McCain had pulled ahead in the polls for a couple weeks which I believe was in large part because of Sarah Palin. Now its obvious most people claim they scrutinize her because she is an unknown, and I figure thats the case for a great deal of people. However we also have people obsessing about how much she spends on clothes, as if she is the only politician with the means to live in luxury. We've had various attacks on her family, we had the troopergate scandal, and people pointing out that she believes in God. Everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at this woman. Most recently we had
her do an interview with Drew Griffin on CNN where he completely distorts the comments of a writer from the National Review to put Sarah Palin on the spot.

Take a look at this clip where Bill O'Reilly better explains this........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-lRkdwmvo...feature=related

He also comments on this Sarah Palin wardrobe story a bit.

We've had endless coverage of Sarah Palin since late August, and often times the treatment Palin has gotten has been less than fair, an example of that can be seen in the clip above. We've all had questions about her, and actually many of these questions needed to be asked, but as you probably know Ted the type of treatment she got as a newcomer was quite different than the type of treatment Barack Obama got when he came onto the scene as a relatively unknown political figure. I think this is because conservatives don't have the same amount of media outlets that liberals do today. The labels that the left creates for conservatives and Republicans get distributed and repeated effectively on not only a number of news networks and papers, but on a number of late night comedy shows, and on other shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and even SNL.

Left wing America today knows how to create effective labels for their political opponents that stick, and they have the media outlets to do it. They are just better at using distraction and rhetoric, there's no doubt about it. They come up with these labels that really do work much of the time. George Bush has helped them a great deal in that respect, but thats how it goes I suppose.

This election has been an uphill battle for conservatives since the beginning. Beyond Bush playing to the advantage of the left, liberals are backing a candidate that is nearly immune to the same type of distortion John McCain and Palin get on a regular basis. Conservatives are in a situation thats kind of like a one way food fight. Both sides throw food and attempt to distort the other side. Liberals try to distort McCain and Palin, and Conservatives in many cases try to distort Obama as well.

However not much sticks to Obama. Remember that fat lady who called Obama an Arab at a McCain rally? That didn't help, in fact it hurt McCains campaign if anything. Simply asking questions about Obama and Ayers, or Obama and ACORN, seems to be counter effective. Conservatives walk a thin line when they criticize Obama, in some cases even if its a legit criticism.

On the other hand food thrown at conservative politicians sticks like glue in times like these. For example many people actually believe Sarah Palin is a dumb broad at this point. That was the label that stuck for her by the way "dumb broad".

If you search online at political debate sites, youtube, myspace, or read some of the follow up comments to stories about Sarah Palin, the amount of disgust some people display now to Sarah Palin is unbelievably negative and downright hateful in some cases. Conservatives are racist or sexist if they say something goofy about Hillary or Obama, but liberals can really drive home distortion on Sarah Palin and John McCain, because every time they do it, its repeated for 4 weeks on every late night show, while Steve Colbert and Jon Stewart feed this stuff back to America effectively through comedy. Sad part is many people take comedy outlets seriously. For example one member on this site was talking about how well Jon Stewart was able to draw comparisons with Bush and Sarah Palin.

If McCain loses this election I just hope Sarah Palin can go back to Alaska and continue Governing their without the media hassling her anymore. In any case She's getting quite a taste of what McCain and Bush have had to deal with as Conservatives in the media spotlight. As far as her wardrobe, I just find this to be beyond ridiculous. Why are people surprised about her spending large amounts of money on clothes, lol? She's a freakin State Governor for goodness sake.

This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 24 2008, 06:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 24 2008, 06:15 PM
Post #16


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 24 2008, 01:51 PM) *
However not much sticks to Obama. Remember that fat lady who called Obama an Arab at a McCain rally? That didn't help, in fact it hurt McCains campaign if anything.


That is supposed to stick? Some idiot at a McCain rally shouts out a total falsehood about Obama, and you are uspet that it didn't stick? Is that the "liberal bias" you are always complaining about? Net, that's silly, even for you.

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 24 2008, 01:51 PM) *
Why are people surprised about her spending large amounts of money on clothes, lol? She's a freakin State Governor for goodness sake.


$150,000 for two months. That's $2500 per day on clothes. And seeing as she makes, what, $166,000 as governor, you think $2500/day on clothes is something normal to her?

Keep in mind, also, that McCain is using public financing, so she is wasting our money.

Once again, the conservatives on this board are defending the indefensible, just because it's coming from their party. And blaming the "liberal press" in the same breath. Net, this is exactly the type of revelation that is driving more open-minded Republicans over to Obama. Is there anything the Republicans could do to lose your vote???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 24 2008, 06:33 PM
Post #17


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Oct 24 2008, 01:15 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 24 2008, 01:51 PM) *
However not much sticks to Obama. Remember that fat lady who called Obama an Arab at a McCain rally? That didn't help, in fact it hurt McCains campaign if anything.


That is supposed to stick? Some idiot at a McCain rally shouts out a total falsehood about Obama, and you are uspet that it didn't stick? Is that the "liberal bias" you are always complaining about? Net, that's silly, even for you.


NO, that comment is not supposed to stick, it's just stupid is what it is.

I'm not upset that didnt stick, I'm just amazed that Sarah Palin as the "Dumb Broad" has stuck with many. In retrospect I shouldn't be, even Republicans like Ronald Regan had to deal with the "dumb Republican" stereotype.


QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 24 2008, 01:51 PM) *
Why are people surprised about her spending large amounts of money on clothes, lol? She's a freakin State Governor for goodness sake.


$150,000 for two months. That's $2500 per day on clothes. And seeing as she makes, what, $166,000 as governor, you think $2500/day on clothes is something normal to her?

Keep in mind, also, that McCain is using public financing, so she is wasting our money.

Once again, the conservatives on this board are defending the indefensible, just because it's coming from their party. And blaming the "liberal press" in the same breath. Net, this is exactly the type of revelation that is driving more open-minded Republicans over to Obama. Is there anything the Republicans could do to lose your vote???


Is there anything Republicans could do to lose my vote? I dunno, maybe if they radically change their policies. Or Obama radically changes his. Policy is the primary reason I align myself with conservatives, and the Republican party. As far as believability goes the Democrats and Republicans have both frustrated me in that respect but there isn't much I can do about that. wink.gif If the Democratic party could demonstrate credibility and believability, that exceeded the Republicans that would certainly be a plus for them, but lets face it THEY DONT

I have my questions about politicians in General as far as believability goes. Look at the Bush administration, and look at our new Democratic dominate congress that ran their campaign on change, Its a joke.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 24 2008, 06:46 PM
Post #18


*********
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



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 think Cindy McCain probably had something to do with how much was spent and where. She has expensive tastes, and she was probably very persuasive to get the wardrobe for Sarah Palin.

I do not think that it was wise to spend that kind of money on Palin's clothes. For a person who is known for cutting back spending and practicality, it sends the wrong message. Is it necessary to wear designer clothes in order to dress becomingly? If so, most of us are out of luck, aren't we?

Maybe she really is "Caribou Barbie" to the Repubs--ooh, cool! Let's accessorize!!! w00t.gif

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

The John McCain we used to know thought that it was wasteful and should not be done. I believe it was Rachel Maddow who had a film clip last night where McCain was talking about it being inappropriate,* where he was mostly referring to tuxedos. (Wish I could link to it. Maybe somebody else can?)

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

Seems to me that's up to the campaign. They'd just better beware if and when it gets out to the media--loose lips sink campaigns as well as ships!

Let's consider how much better received it would have been had Sarah Palin gone mainstream with her outfits, maybe getting them at JC Penney or Sears, and looking smashing anyway? For that kind of money she could have easily had 5 or 6 seamstresses take in the clothes, lengthen or shorten them, whatever. And she would have come across as sensible and attractive!

*EDIT: I found a link! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27320899
QUOTE
The 2002 campaign finance law that bears McCain's name specifically barred any funds that "are donated for the purpose of supporting the activities of a federal or state office holder" from being used for personal expenses including clothing. A quirk in the law does not specifically mention party committees, however.

[...]

Fifteen years ago, McCain himself complained that restrictions on political contributions for personal use at that time were too broad and he wrote an amendment to tighten the law.

"The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly," he said on the Senate floor in May 1993."


This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 24 2008, 06:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 24 2008, 07:21 PM
Post #19


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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 think its pertinent to point out that as a politician of that calibre, its highly unlikely Palin is buying her own clothes. One has a stylist for that sort of thing, and the stylist has most probably been given a budget to spend by the people managing the McCain campaign, who in turn are almost certainly working to a formula of what works, and the sad fact is, for a woman in the public eye, you have to spend a lot of money to keep looking good. Looking good doesn't mean looking sexy/beautiful either, it means avoiding criticism. The bottom line is, Palin is a woman and she'll get hammered if she doesn't look 'absolutely fabulous'. All women in politics suffer from this, even frumpish older women like Merkel and Thatcher.

Its no good asking how much Obama spent on his wardrobe, because no one gives a toss. You only have to look at how much variety a womans department carries compared to the drab and uniform clothing men are offered.


QUOTE
Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not?
As stated above, they don't buy their own clothes. When do you think Palin has had the time to buy clothes in the last two months?


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?
If any clothing is surplus to requirements, it ought to be given to charity.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sleeper
post Oct 24 2008, 07:54 PM
Post #20


********
Who dat!

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,692
Member No.: 386
Joined: January-17-03

From: Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



Here we are talking about Palin's $150,000 budget on wardrobe. While not a mention of the $2 Million dollars that Obama is planning on spending for his election night party.

Link to story

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: November 17th, 2018 - 09:39 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.