GOP spends $150,000 for Palin's wardrobe

[LeBuick]

You're guessing.

Proof?

I said probably... It's no secret Hillary pays $6K per pants suite which are tailor made but she SAYS she pays for them herself. There are many designers who want to clothe Hillary for free but she has (at least publicly) turned them down.

 

[carpro]

I said probably... It's no secret Hillary pays $6K per pants suite which are tailor made but she SAYS she pays for them herself. :laugh:

Probably?

Good way to say you don't really know but you'll use it as innuendo anyway.

 

[LeBuick]

Probably?

Good way to say you don't really know but you'll use it as innuendo anyway.

Probably as in highly likely since she pretty much financed her own campaign. Even if her campaign did pay it was her money?

 

[TomVols]

I do not believe the Palin clothing issue is going to play well with many American families who are worried about the economy.

I do not believe typical, thinking Americans, esp Independents like myself, give a rat's foot what Sarah Palin's clothes cost or that Michelle Obama wears $2,000 broaches. Who cares? I have far greater issues to worry about. Now, the People magazine, National Enquirer crowd can fret all they want to.

 

[LeBuick]

I do not believe typical, thinking Americans, esp Independents like myself, give a rat's foot what Sarah Palin's clothes cost or that Michelle Obama wears $2,000 broaches. Who cares? I have far greater issues to worry about. Now, the People magazine, National Enquirer crowd can fret all they want to.

It was just a matter of whose money bought the lifestyle. If she bought it with her money then you're right, but with campaign donations???

 

[LeBuick]

Also, it seems McCain agreed that campaign money shouldn't be used for clothe when he stood before the Senate.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/mccain-clothes-rnc/

MCCAIN: Madam President, the amendment before the Senate is a very simple one. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases … and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. […]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Also, it seems McCain agreed that campaign money shouldn't be used for clothe when he stood before the Senate.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/mccain-clothes-rnc/

Wasn't the point of that for personal purchases, not for campaign purchases? If I understand this right, they bought her clothes for the campaign, not for "personal purchases."

 

[LeBuick]

Wasn't the point of that for personal purchases, not for campaign purchases? If I understand this right, they bought her clothes for the campaign, not for "personal purchases."

McCain specifically says clothe in his reform plea on the Senate floor...


I think she should auction off the clothe and give the money to special needs kids at the end of the election and she can add it to her resume.

 

[Pastor Larry]

McCain specifically says clothe in his reform plea on the Senate floor...

Did you read it? It says: It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases … and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. It says "inherently personal purchases ... for such things as ... clothing purchases." So it is clear by reading it that he is not talking about clothing bought specifically for a campaign, but clothing bought for "inherently personal" reasons. That doesn't appear to be the case here ... But of course reading and thinking carefully sometimes puts me at a disadvantage to those who would rather just make attacks.

I think she should auction off the clothe and give the money to special needs kids at the end of the election and she can add it to her resume.

Perhaps, but irrelevant.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Did you read it? It says: It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases … and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. It says "inherently personal purchases ... for such things as ... clothing purchases." So it is clear by reading it that he is not talking about clothing bought specifically for a campaign, but clothing bought for "inherently personal" reasons. That doesn't appear to be the case here ... But of course reading and thinking carefully sometimes puts me at a disadvantage to those who would rather just make attacks. Perhaps, but irrelevant.

Nothing much more personal than clothing and hair styling. The devil, as always is in the details [interpretation.] Some will agree with you. Some will say that is a weasling out of the problem.

I really do not care ... but it is a hard sell to say you are a average hockey mom when you have a $100,000 new wardrobe in the bowels of the campaign plane. It was a mistake, and I believe that Palin would agree.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Nothing much more personal than clothing and hair styling.

Not if it is bought for the campaign, which is a business expense. Nothing less personal than something bought purely for business reasons.

I really do not care ... but it is a hard sell to say you are a average hockey mom when you have a $100,000 new wardrobe in the bowels of the campaign plane

Again, someone else bought it for her. The hard sell of "average hockey mom" is the candidacy. No other hockey moms doing that. Palin was never an average hockey mom. She was a governor of a state, which is not average by any definition.

 

[Revmitchell]

Palin Calls Self 'Frugal,' Denies Taking $150,000 in Designer Clothes

Of the $150,000 spent by the Republican National Committee on clothing for the vice presidential candidate, $50,000 worth of clothes was returned immediately after the national convention, $50,000 worth hasn't been worn yet and $50,000 is being used by the Palin clan.

Sarah Palin told FOX News on Thursday that some of the clothes that were ill-fitting or just bought to be tried and possibly worn were returned right away.

Everything that "could be returned was," she said. Another third of the clothing remains unwrapped and packed in the belly of the vice presidential candidate's campaign plane and the rest is being worn.

Republican aides say the purchases were necessary because the family was whisked out of Alaska without notice, then scattered across the country for campaign activities not least of which was a week of convention appearances.

"Those clothes are not my property," Palin told FOX News' Sean Hannity. "We had three days (at the convention) of using clothes that the RNC purchased."

Palin added that she knows how to make a dollar work for her appearance.


More Here

 

[LeBuick]

Of the $150,000 spent by the Republican National Committee on clothing for the vice presidential candidate, $50,000 worth of clothes was returned immediately after the national convention, $50,000 worth hasn't been worn yet and $50,000 is being used by the Palin clan.

The question, if $50K of the clothe were returned after the convention, why aren't the credit entries on the finance sheets? Are we going to see revised sheets in the next couple of days?

Also, if there is nothing wrong with what they did, why are they trying so hard to prove some clothe were returned?

Not that I care except that they paint Obama as the big spender of your money and this shows how they say one thing while doing another. Is this the "reform" Washington can expect? Is this the way we "cut pork barrel spending"? Does this mean they'll will cut welfare but spend money for their own purposes?

 

[Amy.G]

The question, if $50K of the clothe were returned after the convention, why aren't the credit entries on the finance sheets? Are we going to see revised sheets in the next couple of days?

Also, if there is nothing wrong with what they did, why are they trying so hard to prove some clothe were returned?

Not that I care except that they paint Obama as the big spender of your money and this shows how they say one thing while doing another. Is this the "reform" Washington can expect? Is this the way we "cut pork barrel spending"? Does this mean they'll will cut welfare but spend money for their own purposes?

Unless I'm mistaken, the RNC money is not our money. It didn't come from tax payers or the government, so who cares how they spend it? What's the difference in spending campaign money on clothes or spending it on big parties and fundraisers?

 

[targus]

The question, if $50K of the clothe were returned after the convention, why aren't the credit entries on the finance sheets? Are we going to see revised sheets in the next couple of days?

I know that you are just having fun here.:laugh:

Obama has over $200,000,000 in illegal and foreign campaign contributions and his required reporting is not even 50% complete and you are raving about wanting to see receipts for some returned clothes?:laugh:

Brother, you are a hoot !!:laugh:

 

[LeBuick]

Unless I'm mistaken, the RNC money is not our money. It didn't come from tax payers or the government, so who cares how they spend it? What's the difference in spending campaign money on clothes or spending it on big parties and fundraisers?

It is also not THEIR money. It is donated money with which they should use responsibly. The same we ask with the government checkbook.

If this is what they call good use of campaign donations, why would we see them doing different with tax dollars?

 

[LeBuick]

I know that you are just having fun here.:laugh:

Obama has over $200,000,000 in illegal and foreign campaign contributions and his required reporting is not even 50% complete and you are raving about wanting to see receipts for some returned clothes?:laugh:

Brother, you are a hoot !!:laugh:

These are only allegations made by the right that has yet to be proved. The reporting McCain is calling incomplete is Obama didn't list his donors under $200. By law he doesn't have to so he has done nothing wrong.

There are also conservatives going to his donation site and using bogus names or even known terrorist/non-us names. They need to understand the volume of donations Obama receives per day and it takes time to audit all those donations. To say the site accepted their donation is a no brainer, it's designed to accept donations. The question is will the Obama campaign find the bogus donations and return them. These dummies sure gave Obama accountants a huge bit of help by listing the names and amounts all over the web.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Also, if there is nothing wrong with what they did, why are they trying so hard to prove some clothe were returned?

Perhaps because somet unthinking and politically biased people are making an issue of it and they desire to have the air cleared.

 

[LadyEagle]

Some people need to get a life.. :sleeping_2:

 

[Revmitchell]

Libs need to talk about stupid fallacies like this to detract from the communist wealth redistribution that McCain is making obvious.