To save the US economy - Republicans turn to a tribunus plebis??!

Remove all ads!

You can say what you will about Sarah Palin, but the whole clothes thing is an obvious stereotyped red herring. People criticizing her for her wardrobe upgrade never once looked at how much money the other three MALE candidates had spent over the last few years to create a wardrobe that would look appropriate on the public stage. The underlying insinuation seems to me to be that "Sarah is a ditz at heart, a political savant like Elle from 'Legally Blonde', and really, she should go back to her makeup and leave politics to smarter people."

Look, she may be dumb - -IMHO the jury's out on that one -- I have my doubts because she has succeeded in earlier leadership / politcal positions, but the stuff about the clothes is just sexist crap. Would her detractors (both Dem and Rep) have been happier if she'd spiked her hair and dressed as gender neutrally as possible? Maybe so, but I don't see the relevance at all -- as a politician you've got to look the part, and until I see a full fledged breakdown on the value of every other Presidential contender's wardrobe, I think the detractors should just hush. I am very sure that if the RNC feels ripped off, they'll take her to task for it and get their money back.

 

That makes two of us then, because you are STILL NOT getting it that I'm trying to agree with you. Talk about being gracious - I'm trying to agree with you and you still keep attacking me. What's your deal?

That's the post I'm talking about. Making value judgments regarding the notion that everyone has different needs depending upon who they are was MY POINT to Gnraff. This topic was not political until you brought up Hill and Nancy. Gnraff and I have been arguing about how much people need to spend for personal items, particularlly regarding the use of credit, which Palin used in part to pay for a wardrobe of over 150K, and now McCain's people are saying that she really spent way more then that, because she purchased expensive items for her husband and kids. If you wish to keep making this political feel free to do so, but we were not arguing politics at all, but personal behaviors regarding spending. You may want to go back and review the posts before you comment any further.

Besides, on the politcal side, Palin was supposed to represent that average "hockey mom;" everyone knows that Cindy is very wealthy, so it would make sense that she would wear a new dress everyday. Palin was only supposed to purchase a total of 6 suits to wear, but went ballistic with the credit card spending - one would think that that was exactly what Gnarff has been arguing AGAINST in this entire exchange. But then he pops off with "I thought she would have spent more." How much sense does that make to you? Please go back and review the previous posts.

 

OK, now I will get political, since I wrote this in Palin's defense the other night, more stories about Palin have appeared.

Like I said, since I wrote that it appears that Palin just seems to have a little bit of a problem of spending money that is not her own. Besides the story that she ran up the credit cards on the RNC, she also spent a fairly large amount of the taxpayer money as Governor of Alaska on event trips with her family. Although the state pays for her, it does not pay for her family unless they are invited.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/10/save-taxpayers.html

For someone who is on the side of the "Average Joe" she seems quite lavish when it comes to spending Joe's money. I would think that fiscal conservatives would agree with me on this.

 

Chandos, considering her total family spending is a fraction of the spending of the last governor, I don't see why people are complaining about this. It kind of seems like criticizing a politician for smoking cigarettes when the last one smoked crack, slept with prostitutes, and gambled.

 

Really? I did not know that he spent all that much on his family as well. That is interesting. It must be how they do things in Alaska. Can you post a link?

 

Po-tay-toe ... po-tah-toe ... we must speak two different languages 'cause I coulda swore y'all was trying to bust my chops....

Even with her spending over the past few weeks, she's small potatoes compared to the wonderful governor of Illinois, who refuses to live in the state capitol and instead commutes daily between Chicago and Springfield in the state owned jet and at taxpayer expense. And the morons here re-elected him.

 

Well, I'm glad we worked that out, because I really was agreeing with you, for the most part, T2.

 

Chandos: I don't know which is funnier, you continued hatred for the Republican party or your attempts to spell my screen name...

The average Joe is not trying to be Vice president, either. The average Joe doesn't have rich people's money to spend. That $150k was an investment in advancing her political career to the highest offices in the land. Even in defeat, she goes back to Alaska where they had savings, Her job as Governor, her husband's successful business, and likely some media opportunities. It is you that's being dishonest comparing her aspirations to that of the average family when her aspirations and resources are anything but average.

My arguement took into account Needs, objectives and means to pay for it. Palin's objective was to become Vice President, thus the needs she had were well beyond any conceivable normal situation. She likely had extensive savings, and an income well above that of the majority of families, before you factor in that her husband was a successful entrepreneur in Alaska. She also had (or believed she had) others financing this spending.

Her case was an abberation, a situation where the principles make absurd sounding figures make sense. It also puts a damper on the American dream by exposing how much it costs the candidate to seek the highest offices in the nation. Is it possible that the campaign could have been done cheaper? Probably, but I don't know. Could she have misjudged the means at her disposal? Likely, but that's not resolved and likely all the details won't ever be fully known.

If these purchases were on her own credit card and beyond her means to pay, then yes it was a questionable decision. I thought that the GOP (taking care of the means) was financing this, and I assumed that it would require more than $150K for the expensive suits for the 67 day campaign where she was constantly in public (needs of the situation). It is possible that I overestimated her savings and the income at her disposal.

 

Your response is woefully out of proportion to what was said, Gnarff. Let's look at it again:

Where did Chandos say he hated republicans again? That said, the complaints about the amount of money Palin spent on clothes weren't lodged by democrats. They were lodged by republicans, and those complaints were valid. She was given authorization to purchase 6 suits for herself. Not only did she buy far more than 6 suits for herself, but she also used campaign money to purchase clothing for her family, as well. As it turns out, she also spent quite a bit more than the 150K that was reported (the actual amount won't be known until the republican party has finished auditing its books). You are welcome to argue that Palin needed more than what she was authorized to buy, but it assumes quite a bit. Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska. To get elected to such a high position, Palin had to campaign for it. As such,her wardrobe is at least gubernatorial, and I doubt that there's really much of a difference between a gubernatorial wardrobe and a presidential one.

The McCain campaign doesn't seem to see it that way. They only authorized the purchase of 6 suits, but Palin purchased quite a bit more than that.

 

Well, I don't know that he spent it on his family per se, I just know that I saw about a dozen articles on everything from MSNBC to Fox News when she first came out, and most of them mentioned how she cut back the Gov's personal spending/travel spending/etc. to a fraction of what it had been.

 

How much of this is sour grapes from other republicans that want to salvage a career? They're throwing Palin under the bus as a scapegoat for the loss. Apparently they can't turn on W until he leaves office...

 

Well, of course they are. That doesn't mean that what they are saying isn't true. But she and Mac were obviously rejected by a majority of the voters, partly for those reasons. It's no surprise to learn now that even some of those within the Mac/Palin camp thought she was incompetent to be VP. It is a surprise, like you comment, that they are willing to admit to it. All they are doing is validating most people's belief that they made a bad choice.

 

So the Democrats won not for what the people believe they could do but because they weren't Mac and Sarah? And I thought Stephane Dion was a knob...

 

In part, the outcome of the election was the result of a poor campaign run by Mac/Palin (and if you read my post closely, you will see that I qualified it as such). There have already been enough posts on this thread to demonsrate Palin's incompetence. And most Americans felt that she was not ready to be VP (like 59 percent). That's VP, not president.

Also, Mac and Palin relied too much on the the old "liberal baiting," which had no effect. You know, like went on here, on this board: Obama's voted "liberal" more times than anyone, and he's the "biggest liberal" in Congress and all that other rot that went on during the election. Guess what? It didn't work. Most voters identified Obama as a "liberal" and still voted for him anyway. It didn't make any difference to them. As I've been stressing in my posts, these are "partly" the reasons.

But since you are interested in the results of the election that was held on Nov. 4, I will provide some data for you (free of charge, as always) and I would also suggest that you analyze that numbers for yourself and draw some conculsions based upon what the voters had to say:

It would appear that the economy was really one of the major and defining issues of the elecion. But again, feel free to draw whatever conclusions the data will allow.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/politics/main4572555.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4572555

 

I stumbled over this remarkable (if somewhat hard to read) piece, or speech rather, by the man formerly known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from 1985. I am confident Chev, you will like this and Monty, you should definitely ponder this.

His speech is about ethics and the market. He points out, from a theologian's point of view, An unethical economy, he argued, will destroy itself, and economics cannot determine whether any activity is ethical or not.

Emphatically, yes!