This sort of thing is why I’m not inclined to believe any of the Palin smears. It’s really astounding how polarized people are about her.
65 thoughts on “Just Making It Up”
Comments are closed.
This sort of thing is why I’m not inclined to believe any of the Palin smears. It’s really astounding how polarized people are about her.
Comments are closed.
…if a presidential campaign can’t explain silk boxer shorts…
a) Why should a presidential campaign have to explain what kind of underwear a member of the campaign is wearing?
b) Are you such a gullible fool that you really believe that a world champion snowmachine racer and professional commercial fisherman in Alaska would request that someone buy him silk boxer shorts, as opposed to the reality, which is likely that he would punch someone out if they accused him of desiring such apparel?
You don’t have to answer the second question. We know the answer.
They don’t fit a sane concept of it. The word torture has been so overused and overdefined as to be rendered meaningless.
An even clearer example: When the American Embassy hostages were released from Iran in 1980, the St. Petersburg Independent ran an AP article with the title: “Tales of Torture: Hostages Tell of Beatings, and Grim Games of Death”.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KOQLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pVgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6887,1963394
That’s almost the same as what Allen West did to the Iraqi policeman, Yeyiha Hamoodi. He beat Hamoodi, he threatened to kill Hamoodi, and he staged a mock execution of Hamoodi.
When that article ran in the St. Petersburg Independent 28 years ago, no one in Florida said, whoa, it’s just hyperbole and lies to call beatings, death threats, and mock execution torture. If it was torture when the Iranians did it, then it still was when Allen West did it. It’s completely wrong to call it “hyperbole and lies” or to say that it’s not a “sane concept” of torture. It’s the standard American concept of torture.
And since I was accused of lying about this, it’s a relief that both McCain and Obama are loyal to the traditional definition of torture. It’s also a relief that Allen West, who has entirely the wrong concept of what’s torture, didn’t win his election.
So any concern that you were taken in by “Martin Eisenstadt” a hoaxer not connected with the campaign
I certainly wasn’t taken in by Martin Eisenstadt or any other hoaxer. As I said at the beginning, the anonymous accusations against Palin are entirely unsatisfactory. But the only way for her to make these accusations go away is to come clean. She or someone else in the campaign needs to list what was bought at Neiman Marcus and say who bought it. She could at least say who showed her the clothes. She needs to name names. She is at best clueless at dispelling suspicions. She can repeat until she’s blue that the issue is “irrelevant”, but just saying so won’t make it irrelevant.
Are you such a gullible fool that you really believe that a world champion snowmachine racer and professional commercial fisherman in Alaska would request that someone buy him silk boxer shorts, as opposed to the reality, which is likely that he would punch someone out if they accused him of desiring such apparel?
We don’t need to speculate about any likely reality. All Todd Palin has to do is to state on the record that it’s a lie that anyone bought any of the Palins silk boxer shorts with campaign money. And all the campaign has to do is publish a list of what clothes were bought for the Palins on their credit cards. That’s all it would take.
After all, this is $150,000 in political donations. It’s not chump change and it’s also not the Palins’ private business. It’s completely wrong to invent answers on Todd Palin’s behalf on the basis of “likely reality”.
One of Sarah Palin’s answers didn’t help anything. She said that she spent the weekend sorting out clothes to return, and “that’s the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear”. $150,000 in campaign clothes shouldn’t have any intersection with kids losing underwear. (But it does raise another theory, that the silk boxer shorts were actually for one of the kids rather than for Todd.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5127821.ece
So Palin did provide some answers in her interview with Greta van Susteren. Just like Alan Colmes, van Susteren is no juggernaut of intrepid journalism. But Palin’s answers did provide some kind of information.
Unfortunately, the answers didn’t sound all that truthful. Van Susteren asked her point blank who did all of this shopping, but Palin did not name any names. She said that she’s still researching the question. It’s not clear why it should take more than two weeks to do this research, and she still can’t produce even one name.
Palin also said that the receipts prove that the clothes were purchased or ordered before she showed up at the convention. How do the receipts prove that? They are dated from September 10th to September 25th, but the convention was from September 1st to September 4th.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/gop-consultant-reimbursed-for-palin-shopping-spree/
I misattributed the comment about underwear to Sarah Palin. It actually came from her dad, Chuck Heath.
Rick Davis said, “I’m not sure she really understood what the parameters are”. That cleared the air like a stink bomb. Then the comment from Chuck Heath was a whiff of laundry, and now Palin’s new interview adds an odor of dead moose. She sounds dismissive, impatient, defensive; she cites receipts that don’t support her case. She repeatedly blames “the RNC”, but she doesn’t name names. The rumors are just going to accumulate until either she or the campaign comes clean.
After all, this is $150,000 in political donations. It’s not chump change and it’s also not the Palins’ private business.
Neither is it your business, unless you’re an RNC donor. Is that why you’re idiotically whining so much about underwear? How much did you donate? Have you asked for your money back?
Or do you just have some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder, and unhealthy interest in other mens’ undergarments?
Again, that was a rhetorical question.
All Todd Palin has to do is to state on the record that it’s a lie that anyone bought any of the Palins silk boxer shorts with campaign money. And all the campaign has to do is publish a list of what clothes were bought for the Palins on their credit cards. That’s all it would take.
Bullshit. Absolute, utter bullshit. She’s responding responsibly to all this crap by indicating she’s not going to be dragged into the mud. The way countless others have done in the past. What frustrates you Jim is that she won’t play your game. You’re covering yourself in garbage and your targets won’t cooperate by joining you. And the more you try the smellier you get. Sucks to be you.
Hmmmmm.
@ Jim Harris
“On the Democratic side, there is a tendency towards blind complacency. Yes Rostenkowski (say) embezzled the post office, and yes it’s bad, but hey, nobody’s perfect and let’s talk about policies instead.”
“On the Republican side, there is a tendency towards open defiance.”
Yeah. This is just another example of bullshit Jim. You don’t actually have any -proof- of this do you because you’re pulling this out of your ass.
It’s nice that you’re making this ridiculous determination that shows how totally wonderful Democrats are even while they’re embezzling while Republicans at heart are just total f–king bastards.
But you really don’t think I’d let you get away with that do you?
Hmmmmm.
Frankly this nonsense over $150k in clothing is boring the hell out of me. Obama spends $5.1 =MILLION= dollars on a couple of Greek columns and a backdrop and that’s fine but this is some incredible deal?
IMO I plan to ignore any comment, post or nonsense that includes this. From now on I plan to treat this as an extension of Godwin’s Law.
Neither is it your business, unless you’re an RNC donor.
That’s just not necessarily true, Rand. First, remember why Jim Traficant went to prison: Federal corruption charges for taking campaign funds for personal use. If a big enough gap opens between Palin’s explanations and the receipts, that’s where the story could lead.
Second, suppose that it is all legal and no worse than her innocently wasting the money of her donors. Then it would still say a lot about what she is like as a stateswoman. After all, the Republicans had a lot to say about John Edwards’ two $400 haircuts, and this story is 200 times as big as what Edwards did.
Third, what you said at the top is that you don’t want to believe any of the smears. But just because a smear isn’t public business, that isn’t a reason to call it false.
Third, what you said at the top is that you don’t want to believe any of the smears.
I didn’t say that. Anyone can look at the top and see what I actually said, instead of your mendacious (as always) misinterpretation of it.
…just because a smear isn’t public business, that isn’t a reason to call it false.
No one said it was a reason to call it false, you illogical reading-comprehension-challenged troll.
And you still seem to be disturbingly obsessed with mens’ underwear.
Second, suppose that it is all legal and no worse than her innocently wasting the money of her donors. Then it would still say a lot about what she is like as a stateswoman. After all, the Republicans had a lot to say about John Edwards’ two $400 haircuts, and this story is 200 times as big as what Edwards did.
Let’s consider these claims. How does this compare to typical clothing budgets for presidential candidates? At a glance, Obama was wearing suits that cost $1500 a pop (the article mentions that he bought five more of them, which is $7500, if bought at retail, right there). That’s more than 9 on the Edwards scale right there.
My take is that a presidential level wardrobe from scratch for a woman with the family size (seven members) Palin has is probably on the order of what was spent. I see no indication of frivilous spending (aside from that oh so damning pair of silk boxers!).
Second, why is this perceived as Palin rather than McCain wasting the money? She’s the VP candidate and unlikely to have that kind of control over finances.
Third, she ran for vice president. She wore the clothes while campaigning. I don’t see how anyone can spin the purchases as illegal even if they are kept afterwards.
Finally, to consider the personal use angle a bit closer, I don’t see that these clothes are that valuable to her. She didn’t need them while running for governor. Can’t say how she’d have used them personally (assuming she would have originally been allowed to keep the clothes).
Karl, first a meta-remark. It’s fine to say that my comments irritate you and that you want to ignore them. De gustibus non est disputandum. It’s also fine to respond to my comments. I really don’t mind either way. But what’s the point in bouncing back and forth?
Obama was wearing suits that cost $1500 a pop (the article mentions that he bought five more of them, which is $7500, if bought at retail, right there). That’s more than 9 on the Edwards scale right there.
You’re right that that’s what it would be if Obama had bought those suits with campaign contributions. But since he spent his own money, he can buy whatever he pleases. He could even buy silk boxer shorts, it would just be his private business. It was also fine when Cindy McCain wore $280,000 earrings, even though it was more than Palin’s entire wardrobe just for two rocks. At the very least all of it is entirely ethical, whether or not maybe some of it is extravagant or vain.
Campaign contributions are other people’s money and then it’s an entirely different story. Remember the conservative/libertarian argument in favor of laissez faire campaign financing, that it’s a form of free speech. That was never supposed to be just, money talks, therefore bribery is protected speech.
My take is that a presidential level wardrobe from scratch for a woman with the family size
For just two months? Why would she need a power designer closet just for that? After all, once the scandal hit she started wearing a pink number which is her own property, and guess what, it looks fine. After all, the woman is already governor of a state. If she has plenty of clothes to serve as governor for 18 months, then she has plenty to campaign for two months.
Besides, there are other women in high places in Washington and foreign capitals and most of them aren’t wearing red hot candy pumps or killer black leather boots. Even if she did need shoes like that, they don’t have to be designer brand. Look at the photos. She was dressed for the Oscars, not for the White House.
I see no indication of frivolous spending (aside from that oh so damning pair of silk boxers!).
The boxer shorts would contradict the alleged purpose of these clothes.
Second, why is this perceived as Palin rather than McCain wasting the money?
Because she can’t give a straight story. She says, for instance, that the RNC ordered all of the clothes before she show up in Minneapolis, and that the receipts show it. But the receipts don’t show it.
But in the large you’re right, neither McCain nor Palin has come clean on this story. We have unaccountable anonymous accusations on one side and unaccountable failed explanations on the other side. It makes Palin look bad, but maybe that’s wrong. Maybe Palin wasn’t actually buying herself expensive clothes with campaign money, maybe she’s just really bad at explaining what happened.
I don’t see how anyone can spin the purchases as illegal even if they are kept afterwards.
In the worst case, if she calculated that her VP nomination was her first big chance to raid Neiman Marcus and Saks for her personal benefit, then yes that would be illegal. If your employer gives you an expense card for clothing, don’t use it at Victoria’s Secret.
I don’t see that these clothes are that valuable to her.
I’ve been to Saks and it’s always full of women. These clothes are valuable to them just as a Corvette would be valuable to me.
Karl, first a meta-remark. It’s fine to say that my comments irritate you and that you want to ignore them. De gustibus non est disputandum. It’s also fine to respond to my comments. I really don’t mind either way. But what’s the point in bouncing back and forth?
I’ve decided to try to ignore your obnoxious side. After all, there are zillions of internet posters each with their own annoying quirks. I just need to grow a thicker skin.
But since he spent his own money, he can buy whatever he pleases.
If that’s true, then you are correct. Still it indicates to me that a wardrobe for a candidate is quite expensive even if the candidate buys the clothes themselves.
For just two months? Why would she need a power designer closet just for that?
Vice president candidate. Look the part, high stakes, all that. Having said that, I see claims that she was asked to buy six sets of clothes and a stylist for $20,000 to $25,000. If true, she overspent by a large multiple (though I doubt that the money was intended to cover everything that the $150,000 or more covered).
You know, looking deeper into this, it’s starting to smell pretty funny to me. But I want to see more than anonymous accusations and contextless summaries of the receipt numbers (eg, how many suits were bought at Saks, when were these clothes bought, was there poor communication, etc). Hard to believe that Palin would make a huge mistake like that and the McCain campaign would let it grow. But if it did happen, hard evidence will come out.
The parties spend big bucks on campaign PR, and clothing is part of that package. It wouldn’t surprise me if campaign donations paid for half the wardrobes of Congress.
I do think the RNC went overboard, and I suspect paranoia. “OMFG, McCain picked this redneck who’s probably never seen the interior of a Saks or Macy’s, much less a Neiman Marcus! We’ve got to do something to polish her up!” Palin and family could have been dressed just as smartly as snob-appeal labels without the snob-appeal prices. I’m right now wearing a wrinkle-free dress shirt purchased for less than $20 from Wal-Mart – it looks just as good as any dress shirt I’ve seen on the campaign trail.
The RNC should have realized that the Dems and the press and others watch the Republicans as intently as a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water (hat tip to H. G. Wells. It should have known that the price tag would have been used against the campaign – with a little imagination this could have been prevented.
Sometimes I think the Beltway is more isolated from the real world than McCain’s tiger cage in Hanoi.
On second thought…no “sometimes” about it.
I’ll take McCain’s fellow Vietnam prisoners over his fellow Senators any day.