board77

from the New York Times today

Quote:

Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist was paid $68,400 and her hair stylist received more than $42,000 for roughly two months of work, according to a new campaign finance report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Ms. Palin’s makeup artist, Amy Strozzi — who was nominated for an Emmy award for her cosmetics work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?” — was paid $32,400 by Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign between Oct. 16 and Nov. 24, the period covered by the most recent reports filed with the commission.

This amount came on top of the $36,000 she had already been paid in previous reports, dating back to September.

In addition, Ms. Palin’s traveling hair stylist, Angela Lew, was paid a total of $42,225, with $23,400 coming during the period covered by the latest reports to the commission, which were due at midnight on Thursday.

Much attention has been paid to the $150,000 the Republican National Committee spent on outfitting Ms. Palin in September at high-end department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, as well as on makeup services.

Republican officials said this week that additional clothing charges would appear on the Republican National Committee’s campaign finance report totaling less than $30,000. But the committee’s report, which was due at midnight on Thursday, was not yet available as of late evening.

We have come a great distance on what is considered acceptable campaign spending from the 1952 Richard Nixon Checkers speech with his wife Pat in her "respectable Republican cloth coat".

What is your point?

I thought it was self evident.

The issues raised in the 1952 campaign with the contributions for Richard Nixons personal use are a famous episode in American electoral politics. It involved some $15 to 18,000 thousand dollars in money and gifts to Nixon and his family including an alleged mink coat for his wife. It nearly cost Nixon his spot on the ticket and his career.

Now we have Governor Palin doing much the same thing and this time the tab looks like it is approaching $300,000.00. And that includes hubbies silk boxers at $40 a pop. I wonder who he was campaigning for with them?

Instead of costing Palin a spot on the ticket, its now simply part and parcel of the campaign- at least for her. Not exactly progress is it?

I wonder how that compares to what Ms. Strozzi made working on So You Think You Can Dance?

Personally, I would not be so quick to judge the Republican party without a comparison of the cost of Mr. Obama's and Mr. Biden's wardrobes. Male candidates use makeup to look good on television too. I'd say that most, if not all, of the money spent in campaigns is for the express purpose of improving the candidate's image. Physical appearance is a large part of this. I'm not saying that I think it's appropriate to spend such exorbitant amounts of money on makeup, hair, and clothes, but I think it's unfair to target Ms. Palin without looking into the other candidates as well.

You do have a point Elfshadow. I am sure that Biden, Obama and McCain all spent money on those things. I suspect that when we get the final figures, all three together do not begin to approach the nearly 300K figure for Governor Palin.

The disturbing thing here is that this is merely one plank in an emerging platform upon which the Governor of Alaska enjoys standing upon while feeding at someone elses trough. Billing the State of Alaska for nights in her own home, billing others for her childrens travel to conferences which was not agreed to in advance, deals on her home, the clothes, its all part of a pattern of enriching yourself at the expense of someone else - be it the public, other organizations, the party or whomever has the checkbook open and is available for the fleecing.

That is not a trait I look for in my public servants.

I really don't have anything to say except to make a point that one, men's wardrobes are much more easy to mix and match with different shirts and ties, therefore cheaper because you can have many more outfits with fewer clothes. Two, Obama and McCain all have had time nationally campaigning and therefore it's entirely possible they've spent quite a lot on clothing but it is spread out over a couple of years rather than all at once as Palin's spending was.

That being said, I just can't imagine spending that much on clothes, ever. Even if I were rich (or in politics) there's no way I could justify spending more than my college education will end up costing on clothing.

halplm wrote:

What is your point?

Kick 'em while they're down.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

halplm wrote:

What is your point?

Kick 'em while they're down.

I think it has more to do with the recession/depression the country is headed into. And people want to blame Obama (who actually hasn't taken office yet) and the Dems, even though out of the last 8 years 6 of them were ran by the GOP.

Pretty'n up Palin is like being told to let them eat cake, IMO.

I think it's sorta like bad car wrecks and such. People can't look away.

I'm still a bit confused at how anyone can spend that much money on clothes in that short a time span but whatever. This is really something the GOP and their donors need to sort out.

Ara-anna wrote:

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

halplm wrote:

What is your point?

Kick 'em while they're down.

I think it has more to do with the recession/depression the country is headed into. And people want to blame Obama (who actually hasn't taken office yet) and the Dems, even though out of the last 8 years 6 of them were ran by the GOP.

Pretty'n up Palin is like being told to let them eat cake, IMO.

I haven't seen much blame of the Democrats.

Seriously, I haven't seen that.

I've seen a lot of blame of Bush and the Republicans. Some of it is spot on target, some of it rather absurdly blames his free market ideas, which he doesn't have. Libertarians blame both parties pretty evenly, but don't blame any actions by President Obama since until late January he's still Senator Obama and just as culpable as the rest of the senators. We're more likely to blame Greenspan and Bernanke than Bush or Obama or Clinton anyway.

The most that I read about recession wise with regards to the Democrats is people trying to guess how they will handle it once the new term starts with 59 Democrat senators and a Democrat president. There is worry in some quarters what they'll do, and anticipation in others ... oddly, over the exact same theorized solutions. One side says "goody, he'll try this" while the other side says "uh-oh, he'll try this."

300K in ten weeks is 30K per week on getting all gussied up. That is just absurd. But as I said earlier, it is consistent with Palin wanting to feed and gorge herself at someone elses trough. It is a pattern.

The last time I looked, Palin was on a whirlwind media tour giving interviews to anybody who seemed to pop up with a camera and microphone. She did not look very down to me.

She keep her own legend alive and works very hard at it.... and still does.

I loved the press conference in Miami at the Governors Conference. You can catch it on CSPAN.

10:05 PM Complete Sarah Palin press conference
10:15-10:45 Round table analysis of complete Palin conference.

You could not write this stuff. Its just too absurd.

you are too absurd. You hate her because you hate the people that agree with here, and you look down upon them because you think they are uneducated and you think you are better than them. You will do anything in your power to drag them down and try to make people look at them negatively.

It's character assassination, and the far left will be doing it against Palin until she goes away for good, but that won't happen, so it's just annoying.

Frankly, I very much dislike Sarah Palin because I think she's ridiculous and uneducated. I would have hated to have her with any amount of control over this country. And that has nothing to do with the people who agree with her.

I wouldn't presume to speak for sf, though. I would rather not tell other people that I know what they're thinking or feeling, since I obviously do not.

I happen to agree with Rebecca. I certainly don't hate Sarah Palin--I defended her in my last post, or I at least tried to qualify her portrayal. But I strongly disagree with most things that she believes and I am not afraid to express my disagreement. I don't think we should rag on her case mercilessly, but she is far from helpless. As sf pointed out, she is certainly not shying away from the press. And, to be honest, I do question the education and judgment of her most enthusiastic supporters. I do not believe she has enough education to run the country. Effective policymaking on the national or international scale requires a deep knowledge base and a thorough understanding of both domestic and foreign policy issues. I have not seen any indication that Ms. Palin possesses this. She seems to be running on her personality alone, and I believe that many of her supporters feel that the only qualification you need to be president is a vague "understanding" of small-town America. And while it's important to be able to sympathize with the needs of your constituency, the role of the president (or vice-president, since that's the position she actually ran for) goes far beyond this. You don't just need to understand small-town America, you need to be able to understand the needs of suburban America and urban America too. You also need to show a willingness to understand the needs and desires of both your international allies and enemies. I don't believe Ms. Palin has these qualities.

I'll say it again, I do not hate Sarah Palin and I do not hate her supporters. I don't believe that the we should fault her entirely for things like her makeup and wardrobe. Many of these decisions were not hers but were the decisions of aides and party officials. However, most of the attention from the press that she is getting is her own responsibility.

hal wrote:

you are too absurd. You hate her because you hate the people that agree with here, and you look down upon them because you think they are uneducated and you think you are better than them. You will do anything in your power to drag them down and try to make people look at them negatively.

It's character assassination, and the far left will be doing it against Palin until she goes away for good, but that won't happen, so it's just annoying.

The irony train smashes right into this thread.

As to the topic-

Not that Palin's expenses are that important since the election is settled, they are important to the character of Palin, and what she represents for the Republican party, and the country. Small town hockey mom spends 150k (more than what some in small towns make) on clothes, and then another 100k on hair, and make-up. Palin tried assassinating Obama's character by calling him an elitist, and not in touch with small town America, but then she spends 250k on her looks? Not in touch with small town America my asshole!

Palin tried to portray herself as outside of Washington, and here she is spending money like a big city gal! It isn't character assassination if it is true.

I do hate what Palin represents. She represents blatant hypocrisy, and ignorance. Most of the charges she levies against her opponents (and their constituents) apply directly to her. That is what we should look forward to in 2012 for the Rethuglicans? Pfft.

Off-topic--I read a story today about Obama calling to congratulate a Florida rep. who just won her election (forgot her name). She thought the call from him (Obama personally called, and didn't use a staffer as a buffer) was a prank, so she hung up on him. Then Rahm Emanuel called her to tell her it was really Obama, and she again hung up, thanking him for the prank. Finally a fellow member of the Foreign Relations Committee called her explaining what happened (she verified who he was by asking a personal question), and she was flabbergasted that she hung up on Obama twice. Obama got in contact with her again, and apparently they had a laugh about it. I just mention this because it is nice to know we will have a president with a good sense of humor. I like Obama more and more. He seems like a very nice person.

This bit of news is new, but I'm not surprised.


TED wrote:

Quote:

Not that Palin's expenses are that important since the election is settled, they are important to the character of Palin, and what she represents for the Republican party, and the country. Small town hockey mom spends 150k (more than what some in small towns make) on clothes, and then another 100k on hair, and make-up. Palin tried assassinating Obama's character by calling him an elitist, and not in touch with small town America, but then she spends 250k on her looks? Not in touch with small town America my asshole!

I agree. Actually, 150k is more than what MOST in small towns make.

halplm wrote:

Quote:

It's character assassination, and the far left will be doing it against Palin until she goes away for good, but that won't happen, so it's just annoying.

I think there is a difference between maliciously tarnishing a relatively stand-up person's character b/c one is insecure w/ one's own position VS. pointing out significant and obvious RED FLAGS about a person who could possibly have the power to make major decisions for the country. $300,000 for make up and wardrobe over a few months tells me Palin is excessively materialistic, and that she derives her sense of self-worth from what others think about her appearance...or it could mean that her campaigning was based largely on the way she looked. And I don't think how a President LOOKS is as anywhere nearly as important as what a President thinks and does.

Obama spent over $750 million trying to get elected.

McCain spent over $200 million trying to get elected.

Of that $200 million, what, $300,000 was on mayking Palin look good? That's 0.15% of what they spent.

Anyone have a list of the things Obama spent over $300,000 on in his campaign? Think any of them were about his image? Is that acceptable because he's a man? Is it acceptable because he makes no claims about a humble upbringing (oh wait, he does)? Is that acceptable because you like him?

Why is it not a news story all of what Obama spent in every little detail?

[ot]Holy crap, a combined $1 billion spent on running for President. NOT counting the primary losers. It's kinda terrifying, IMO.[/ot]

hal wrote:

Anyone have a list of the things Obama spent over $300,000 on in his campaign? Think any of them were about his image? Is that acceptable because he's a man? Is it acceptable because he makes no claims about a humble upbringing (oh wait, he does)? Is that acceptable because you like him?

To answer your questions:

1. No, I don't have a list. Are you insinuating that Obama spent over 300k on his actual looks? If you are insinuating such, do you have proof?

2. A presidential campaign is partially based on image. You want to portray the most presidential image possible to the American public. The exact numbers only matter in this instance if you can prove that Obama spent the same or more on his hair stylist, make-up artist, and clothing. In the case of Palin, the Republicans tried to portray her as a small-town hockey mom when her expenses said the exact opposite. In fact, her history of political spending portrays her as a woman who uses funds not of her own to spend on her and her family. Are there any stories of Obama doing the same?

3. His humble upbringing was a big part of his campaign, but he didn't contradict that upbringing by spending 150k on his clothing. In fact, I recall a picture of him that made the rounds at the same time as Palin's wardrobe where you could see how worn his shoes were.

4. Not at all, but insinuating that Obama spent hundreds of thousands on his looks; and stories, and expense accounts that demonstrate Palin doing so, are very different. One stems from an indefensible position, and the other provable.

What does this all mean to Palin's wardrobe misadventures? She is not what they claimed she was, and that is what gets people. The Republicans tried to trick the American public, and here it is biting them in the ass.