Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

RNC Sponsors Palin’s Wardrobe to the cost of $150,000….

By 36 Comments

It’s all there, buried in federal financial disclosure records, including:

$49,425.74 from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York

A $75,062.63 spree at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, site of the GOP convention



$295 for a top of the line baby stroller for the governor’s infant

That’s more than the $125,000 that Alaska taxpayers pay the governor.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. can use the line…we have more pressing problems to talk about, yada yada.

    <

    p>I would be real unhappy if I gave to the RNC and this is how they chose to use my money.

    <

    p>Another take is with the economic crisis and voters concerned about money, and she’s doing a spending spree with other people’s money at Saks?

    • and $5000 on hair and makeup.

      <

      p>AS the LA Times says, the real issue is how she’s been packaged:

      <

      p>

      Still, voters must find it unfathomable for Palin, who has been presented as a woman “like us,” to spend that kind of money on clothes in these difficult financial times, to see her speaking so passionately about Joe the Plumber while plumbing campaign coffers for Valentino jackets and pencil skirts.

    • We have the Massachusetts governor closing down vital facilities and services for people with mental health issues and mental retardation, while he doesn’t want to discuss his Cadillac. These two deserve each other.

      • will save the state $1.1 Billion.

        <

        p>I do think Patrick should have taken a pay cut as part of his budget though.  He did trim the Governer’s Office budget by $1 million dollars, but the cut in personal salary would have shown that he was sharing the sacrifice.

        • Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter II, Section 1, Article xiii states:

          <

          p>”Article XIII. As the public good requires that the governor should not be under the undue influence of any of the members of the general court by a dependence on them for his support, that he should in all cases, act with freedom for the benefit of the public, that he should not have his attention necessarily diverted from that object to his private concerns — and that he should maintain the dignity of the commonwealth in the character of its chief magistrate, it is necessary that he should have an honorable stated salary, of a fixed and permanent value, amply sufficient for those purposes, and established by standing laws: and it shall be among the first acts of the general court, after the commencement of this constitution, to establish such salary by law accordingly.”

          <

          p>Not quite as explicit as the federal constitution’s prohibition on the President’s salary being increased or diminished within the term, but the idea is similar.

          <

          p>For what it’s worth, I disagreed with Romney’s decision to not take a salary, as noble as his motives may have been.  I fear that the public will get too used to that idea and only elect independently well-off people to office, which seems antithetical to our system.

        • Just like when Deval took a road trip to NY for his book deal while the vote on casinos was going down toilet. It’s the buying of the caddy and the drapes, and hiring an assistant for his wife – when he’s telling the citizenry that there’s a budget crisis.  

          <

          p>This guy is cutting REAL services to the weak and disenfranchised while he hired how many people this year?  1900?  Yeah – this is some real fine executive we have here.  We can only hope that Obama takes his sorry rearend to DC with him.  

    • So what? And that embroidering costs much less than the cheapest outfit the RNC bought for Sarah.

      <

      p>Of course, the real problem for Sarah is how much they spent for high-end outfits when they were trying to present her as a regular middle-class working mom. It doesn’t make any sense. Think how different the story would be if they could have bragged about how Sarah bought all her clothing at Wallmart and Target. Another big screw-up by the McCain campaign and the Republican party.

      <

      p>They claim that they will donate all of the clothing to charity after the campaign, but does that mean they are also going to give back the stroller and the clothing they bought for her children as well? I doubt it.

  6. From Ezra:

    Update: Jesse Taylor estimates that “if John Edwards’ legendarily elitist haircuts ($400 a pop!) were a weekly thing, he’d spend $4,000 on haircuts over the course of ten weeks. John Edwards could get 7.2 years of haircuts for what it costs to keep Sarah Palin it high-necked jackets for ten weeks.” Indeed, over e-mail he notes that it’s costing “$2,142.86 per day to clothe her.” That’s a lot of money, but give Palin some credit: She’s not hoarding it all to herself. She’s spreading it around to luxury clothing outlets.

  7. Earlier on the thread, a commenter said a propos Romney taking no salary, “I fear that the public will get too used to that idea and only elect independently well-off people to office, which seems antithetical to our system.”

    <

    p>We’re there.  When you think about it, Palin is the only nominee, and just about the only candidate, for decades from EITHER party who isn’t ALREADY a multimillionaire when seeking office.

    <

    p>The juvenile and disgusting photos of people looking ‘up’ at Palin which BMG is so fond of underscores a basic truth for women in politics – nobody gives a damn what you say compared to what you wear or how you look.

    <

    p>I remember Drudge closeups of Hillary’s bloodshot eye, displaying her crow’s feet.  The incessant criticism of her clothes, makeup, and on and on.  Palin’s getting the same treatment.

    <

    p>BMG was OK with how Clinton was treated, as The One was their candidate – it’s not like it was RACIST or anything – but women in politics, some with icky black and white coats, know that they damn well BETTER have top of the line clothes in order to appear in public if they want to have a snowball’s chance of having ANYTHING they say be heard over the screech of a run in a stocking.  BTW – talk to your older brothers and sisters who actually have children – $295 for a sturdy stroller is pretty average.

    <

    p>I gave money to the RNC.  I’m OK with it.

    • Thank you to BMG for supporting your presidential candidate’s request and finally focusing on the real issue. No, not economy, not the war, not unemployment but powerful issues like…

      <

      p>Sarah Pailin’s wardrobe expenses or Cindy McCain’s dress cost at the RNC.

      <

      p>Hopefully we will be able to discuss her hair style and eye glasses before the election…

      <

      p>Now we’re talking.

      • And we can likewise focus on whatever the hell we want.  Obama campaign doesn’t run me or this blog.  

        <

        p>So, you want to talk about real issues?  I say that the real issue is that McCain and his supporters have nothing worthwhile to talk about, so are attacking Obama and his supporters in any way they can.  This includes attacking them for being Americans who can think and speak independently of the candidate the support.

      • Does anybody believe that someone who runs his campaign with this level of incompetence is somehow going to do a great job running the country? Since picking Palin, McCain has had to spend half his time making excuses for her. That does not speak well for his political judgment.

        <

        p>But if you care about the issues, then why don’t you ask John McCain why he is blowing all his advertising budget on attack ads and robocalls devoted to questioning Obama’s relationship with Ayer’s?

        • So I will state here that addressing the real issues such as Obama’s movement of America to a socialistic society is a strong valid point to attack for McCain and not calling Obama a terrorist.

          <

          p>But I am also stating that BMG should stop making remarks about “focusing on the real issues of this campaign, not personal attacks…” when BMG continues to make personal attacks against the Sarah Palin. There’s a word for that kind of behavior.

          • a personal attack would be something like “sarah smells.”  what isn’t a personal attack is pointing out the disconnect between posing as hockey mom/wal-mart shopper and wearing expensive designer clothes.  this is a critique of her campaign decisions and values, which are totally fair game in an election.  have you never harped on deval’s drapes?

            • I disagree Laurel. I think if John Edwards wants $400 haircuts and he pays for hem, who cares. If Sarah is running for VP and the campaign decides her Alaska wardrobe doesn’t cut it then by all means buy her new clothing. Obama gives $800K of his campaign money to getting out the vote… who cares, it’s his campaign money to spend as he sees fit.

              <

              p>I don’t think the RNC buying here wardrobe is on the level the democrats have been asking the debate to be, such as the economy, the war or the tax code.

                • But we weren’t talking about that today.

                  <

                  p>We are talking about her poor political judgment in accepting such ridiculously expensive clothing while trying to pass herself off as a homespun, frugal, conservative reformer.

                  <

                  p>I agree that making fun of her old coat is a little mean. At least that coat was honest.

                • And there is nothing untoward, politically or ethically, in the way Governor Palin has been outfitted for her major role in a Presidential campaign that will likely cost over a billion dollars total.

                  <

                  p>Had she come out in a home made gingham dress, low rent fools would still have posted mocking photos and comments, and lying weasel yellow journalists would still have done front page smear pieces.

                • Everything she does just pushes her favorability ratings lower and lower and drags the McCain campaign down. I didn’t say taking the clothing was unethical on her part. [It may or may not have been legal on the RNC’s part, although it does at least give the appearance of impropriety – can anyone explain why it makes sense for the McCain campaign to not be allowed to buy her clothing but the RNC can?] However, it was a poor political judgment as it ruins the image she was trying to project of herself. Yes, people might have made fun of her if she wore cheap clothing, but that probably would have actually helped the campaign, not hurt it.

                • Polling on the wardrobe? Produce it.

                  <

                  p>Legal questions? Impropriety? Produce campaign law or tax code to back that up.

                  <

                  p>Poor political judgement? In your opinion, of course – and you were never going to vote for her anyhow.

          • Because most of his advertising is crap like the above.

            <

            p>The “socialistic society” angle is totally bogus. What is it based on? Obama may give a tax cut to people who need it while not giving additional cuts to people who don’t?

            <

            p>McCain is going around yelling about how Obama is “going to raise your taxes”, despite the fact that Obama says he won’t. He is either talking to the upper %5 of wage earners whose taxes might go up under Obama or he is simply trying to get people to buy into the Republican talking point that all Democrats raise everyone’s taxes no matter what.

            <

            p>I repeat. The issue with this clothing purchase is it adds to the mountain of evidence that he and his campaign are incompetent.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives