Ed Pound from National Journal reported yesterday that...
The Republican National Committee is scheduled to file a campaign report with the Federal Election Commission Thursday disclosing that the committee spent additional funds to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
...
While not providing much in details, Republican officials say that the RNC's post-election financial report will include information on other "accessories" purchased for Palin before the Nov. 4 election. "The amount to be reported is significantly less than $150,000," one RNC official told National Journal. "The accessories on the report are less than $30,000."
I didn't think too much of this until a colleague who is familiar with all of the players in this drama sent me the following:
This is interesting on a couple of levels. First, political committees almost never reveal what's in their reports before they file, unless it's really good news. Second, the timing is suspect, since (Georgia Senator Saxby) Chambliss, fresh of last night's victory, is crediting Palin -- not McCain -- with driving out voters to support him. So this RNC news rather rains on her parade. And third, it's interesting the RNC didn't find another way to report the accessories so that they'd be less obvious.
I wasn't a fan of Palin for VP, but the way in which RNC and McCain's campaign keep sliming her publicly is such bad form. It's so transparent, which makes it tacky.
too many idiots
I am troubled by the last included comment from an anonymous colleague. This is clearly a Republican-leaning person who is blaming McCain and "McCain's campaign" for "sliming" Palin. This comment makes absolutely no sense. The McCain campaign had little to do with the excesses. The entire problem arose from RNC trying to "help". The offer, to begin with, was on the edge of legality. Nominally, the RNC dressing up Palin for its own show--the Republican Convention. And, since Palin was not yet a candidate, this would have been reasonable, had the amounts stayed within bounds of rationality. This rationality would have been based on dressing Palin--and, perhaps, her family--for the duration of the convention. That means, basically, one, at most two, outfits per day. By any stretch of imagination, this hardly could have exceeded $20,000.
However, this is not what happened. Palin went hog-wild. We now have an *RNC* (not McCain campaign!) account for nearly $180,000. The most troubling part is not the RNC admission--it's the Palin denial. She is not just denying that she's done anything wrong--she is even denying that it happened! And this is a future leader of the Republican Party?? Please! Nixon had more scruples than Sarah Palin. Jimmy Carter was more competent. And Bill Clinton had a more believable account for his cover-up.
It's time for the GOP to sever the cord and let go of its obsession with incompetent radicals. As for Chambliss crediting Palin with turning out the troops, it's nonsense. The turnout was low and the interest even lower. Folks turned out to see Palin at rallies the same way they used to turn out to see the Bearded Woman at carnivals or top hogs at a state fair. It's nothing more than a passing fancy.
too many idiots
I am troubled by the last included comment from an anonymous colleague. This is clearly a Republican-leaning person who is blaming McCain and "McCain's campaign" for "sliming" Palin. This comment makes absolutely no sense. The McCain campaign had little to do with the excesses. The entire problem arose from RNC trying to "help". The offer, to begin with, was on the edge of legality. Nominally, the RNC dressing up Palin for its own show--the Republican Convention. And, since Palin was not yet a candidate, this would have been reasonable, had the amounts stayed within bounds of rationality. This rationality would have been based on dressing Palin--and, perhaps, her family--for the duration of the convention. That means, basically, one, at most two, outfits per day. By any stretch of imagination, this hardly could have exceeded $20,000.
However, this is not what happened. Palin went hog-wild. We now have an *RNC* (not McCain campaign!) account for nearly $180,000. The most troubling part is not the RNC admission--it's the Palin denial. She is not just denying that she's done anything wrong--she is even denying that it happened! And this is a future leader of the Republican Party?? Please! Nixon had more scruples than Sarah Palin. Jimmy Carter was more competent. And Bill Clinton had a more believable account for his cover-up.
It's time for the GOP to sever the cord and let go of its obsession with incompetent radicals. As for Chambliss crediting Palin with turning out the troops, it's nonsense. The turnout was low and the interest even lower. Folks turned out to see Palin at rallies the same way they used to turn out to see the Bearded Woman at carnivals or top hogs at a state fair. It's nothing more than a passing fancy.
I agree the last two
I agree the last two sentences were unnecessary and mildly inflammatory. And Mr Collender, since you took the time to repeat those lines without any commentary of your own, it can only be assumed you desired that impact.
Keeping up appearances.
If appearance didn't matter, then Obama wouldn't be even the Dem nominee, much less President-elect today. Sarah Palin is not wealthy and cannot afford the stylists, make-up artists, and designers that were NECESSARY to make her look the part--ever notice in the credits for TV and movies 'Such and such's wardrobe by X'?
If a little economics isn't out of place on an economics blog, the opportunity costs to Palin of taking time out to shop at Target, Wal-Mart, or (her usual in Alaska) a consignment shop, during a Presidential campaign where she has to visit several different cities each day would be enormous.
Which is why the mountains had to come to Mohammed--with all the requisite travel expenses into the bargain. All of the people who helped prepare Palin had to be compensated to a degree that covered THEIR opportunity costs also.
(And Sarah had a unique problem; in a profession usually described as 'show business for ugly people', she had to cover her beauty--I've seen pictures of her without her glasses, and those are seriously lovely cheekbones--which probably took more time and effort than making Hillary look good.)
Tom Sowell uses the phrase 'physical fallacy' to describe the commonplace fallacy being committed here in criticizing Palin.
Good Grief
" she had to cover her beauty"
The highly paid Hollywood stylists and tailored clothes and accessories from Saks and Neiman Marcus were definitely the key to "uglying her up".
Tips from Hillary would have been cheaper, but I'm guessing that the DNC is keeping the JC Penney pantsuit secret under lock and key.