Sarah Palin, Fashionista on the RNC Dime?
Bill Clinton and John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore -- you can thank Sarah Palin for showing us what pikers you are.
Multi-hundred dollar haircuts? Earthtone clothing consultations? Four-figure hair styling sessions? So '90s. So downmarket.
Now here's real makeover money: ''Politico'' reports that the Republican National Committee has evidently spent more than $150,000 in less than three months to dress and style Sarah Palin and her family. Whoever came up with the nickname ''Caribou Barbie'' got it more right than he knew.
Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York got a combined $49,425.74 from the RNC, and they don't sell Arctic hunting gear there. There were a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis --one of them for $75,062.63 in early September! I feel so stupid -- I was at the St. Paul convention, and I didn't even KNOW there was a Neiman Marcus in the vicinity! Not that there might have been anything left for me after La Palin's Grande Shoppage.
And there are costs for what looks like just one month of hair and makeup. There were no hair and makeup expenses reported in August, so the $4,716.49 reported through September had to be just September, and the only difference between August and September for the RNC was the appearance of the Wasilla Family Palin.
The First Dude has been wearing a really nice suit, and Levi Johnson, Bristol Palin's newly affianced beau, appeared for his command performance at the RNC in spiffy new duds.
By contrast, the people of Alaska got the Palin family for a bargain. The AP is reporting that Palin charged the state for her children's travel expenses, including those to events the kids hadn't been invited to, and that expense reports were later changed to declare that it was official business. The tally for 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights for her three daughters: a comparatively cheap $21,012.
That kind of change would buy about 40 pairs of John McCain's favorite Ferragamo loafers, $520 a pair at Neiman Marcus. The difference -- you just know that McCain wouldn't be charging the RNC for his footwear.
Typical
Sarah Palin is invited to meet with the Pope while he is vacationing south of Rome n Venice. The liberal press reluctantly watches the semi-private audience, hoping they will be able to allot minimal coverage, if any.The Pope asks Governor Palin to join him on a Gondola ride through the canals of Venice.They're admiring the sights and agreeing on moral issues when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water.The gondolier starts to reach for the Pontiff's cap with his pole, but this move threatens to overturn the floating craft.Sarah waves the tour guide off, saying, 'Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry.' She steps off the gondola onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Pope's hat, bends over and picks it up. She walks back across the water to the gondola and steps aboard.She hands the hat to the Pope a mid stunned silence.The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats in Congress, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, the New York Times, Hollywood celebrities, and in France and Germany is:'Palin Can't Swim.'
Posted by: Merfzero | October 22, 2008 at 08:46 AM
With such a scanty resume of public service, and even scantier evidence of actual knowledge or interest, Sarah Palin is obviously auditioning for prime time, not the White House. Spending $150K on grooming is helping the GOP right wing manufacture itself another Ann Coulter.
Posted by: jim | October 22, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Some people get a pass for their extravagances.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f310/ncfool/michelle-snack.jpg
Posted by: walford | October 22, 2008 at 08:28 AM
To Necci: Actually, I read the story over on Politico, and they did look--no similar costs for Obama/Biden on the campaign spending reports. And as for Michelle Obama, she does wear some designer things but most of her wardrobe is down-to-earth, even though she herself made a large salary before the campaign. The dress she wore when she was on The View was less than $150. Cindy McCain of course wears very expensive things, but presumably that is her own money, not campaign money. Hard-core McCain/Palin fans will say that of course they have to have her dress nicely. Sure. But dressing nicely does not have to mean dressing that extravagantly. Especially when you are trying to make the political argument that you are the best ones to connect with the middle class.
Posted by: Independent | October 22, 2008 at 08:16 AM
Sarah Palin’s portray herself as a fiscal conservative when she ran the city of Wasilla, Alaska, as its mayor from 1996 to 2002. However, the truth is very different: during her 6 years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33 percent.
According to figures provided by the city of Wasilla, the operating budget for Wasilla went from $6,050,160 in fiscal year 1996 to $9,393,768 in 2002. That’s a 55 percent increase.
Her huge increase in taxes weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though; borrowed money was needed, too.
The fiscal year ending 1996 (when Palin took the reins), which showed the city’s long-term debt at $1.12 million, mostly for paving and sewer projects. The annual financial report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 — Palin’s last year in office — shows that the total long-term debt was $24.8 million. Long-term debt increased $23.7 million.
From $1.1 million to $23.7million – that is one large increase.
She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $23 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library?
No! $1 million for a park, $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex...She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 years without any borrowing.
Ms. Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press. And she used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor’s use — employees sarcastically called it the mayor-mobile.
OOOHHH, THOSE REPUBLICAN ECONOMICS…GOLLY GEE
AND HOW HAVE THOSE PROJECTS WORKED OUT …. hummmm
WASILLA, Alaska — The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.
The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin’s legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.
“It’s too bad that the city of Wasilla didn’t do their homework and secure the land before they began construction,” said Kathy Wells, a longtime activist here. “She was not your ceremonial mayor; she was in charge of running the city. So it was her job to make sure things were done correctly.”
Litigation resulting from the dispute over Ms. Palin’s sports-complex project is still in the courts, with the land’s former owner seeking hundreds of thousands of additional dollars from the city.
Palin likes to say “Good judgment can make the difference between avoiding a crisis and managing a catastrophe.”
Indeed.
A PEA IN THE POD…..PALIN
Posted by: basementfrog | October 22, 2008 at 08:14 AM
You have to be kidding. We are spending ink on her clothing? what about how much money the MEN are spending on clothing? It is gender bashing to “report” about Hilary and Sarah and their clothing allowances for campaigning. And I am a democrat -not defending Palin, however, the amount of attacks about superfluous “news” is appalling.
Posted by: Cheri Howell | October 22, 2008 at 08:06 AM
RE: "why no story on Obama's or Biden's wardrobe cost?"
- Um.. it's not the cost itself that is the issue, it's how it was paid for. Obama and Biden have NOT charged the campaign for such expenses. Yes, they dress nice, they also do so on their own dime.
See, the difference is, unlike McCain/ Palin, O&B don't exude a sense of entitlement. The conservatives have attacked O&B for being 'elitists' - amusing.. what do you call ANYBODY who spends $150k on clothes and hair/makeup? Personally I call them a pig with lipstick.
Posted by: HRS (Pueblo, CO) | October 22, 2008 at 08:06 AM
Sarah has more problems than wardrobe costs. She is still under investigation in Alaska!!! Abuse of power as Governor. Investigation is now at next step. Legislative investigation was to put good pressure on Sarah's own appointed Ethics Board. Can this Board do investigation fairly???
Some one mentioned Biden - funny his haircuts cost $20 - gotten at same barber he has always gone to. I am sure he has to go elsewhere sine campaigning across country.
John McCain has done it again??? Just can't support these two. No more of same!!
Go Obama - Biden!!
Posted by: Sharon | October 22, 2008 at 08:02 AM
We should all lay off her, she was just practicing 'trickle-down economics'...
Posted by: HRS (Pueblo, CO) | October 22, 2008 at 08:01 AM
why no story on Obama-Biden, becaue they are both honest people and Biden gets his normal 20 dollar haircut and Obama wears his normal threads. No deluxe stuff for either of them and nothing to be listed on their campaign expenditures...
for Palin, no earmarks, but betcha the earrings are pricey along with the rags. That lady is more corrupt than a rotten tomato in an overheated dumpster in August. She'll be joing Stevens soon in the courtroom. Ethics vuiolations? Improper manipulation? she wants to be chairman of the appropriations committee. understandable why biden is laughing over the vp debate, nothing to debate. all packaging and no content.
Posted by: pogo | October 22, 2008 at 07:56 AM
*Why no story on Obama's or Biden's wardrobe cost?*
First, because they apparently didn't charge shopping sprees to either the campaign or the Democratic National Committee.
Second, because they don't run around shouting "Joe the Plumber!" and doing photo-ops at Walmart while spending copious amounts of other people's money in places that few middle class folks can afford.
Palin should donate an outfit to help Joe the Plumber make a mortgage payment.
Hope you're enjoying the allocation of your donations, in any case.
Posted by: a_m | October 22, 2008 at 07:52 AM
Wow, what an attack rag this sad paper has become. Let's forget about things like the C-32 Mrs. Pelosi demands for her "security" force. Please. That plane must burn 21k in fuel a TRIP.
I would go on an on about how one sided this all is, but I'm an independent who could care less about either candidate. I'll be stuck with one of them either way. I am hoping however that my vote will be thought of having the effect of "getting so and so in office by splitting the vote", the most intellectually dishonest argument ever.
When this paper is done playing team sports and will cover actual issues and ALL the candidates (what you do to independents is a true shame...ignore them and make them a formality of the election process).
Did journalism school teach you to compose divisive pap for the quick buck or did you learn it on your own? Either way it is sad.
Posted by: Your paper is a rag | October 22, 2008 at 07:42 AM
Hypocrisy to the nth power. How can Sarah Palin relate to "Joe the Plumber," with her $4,000 make-up and hairdo? Spending 150,000 in a month on clothing and lipstick is not what the average Joe or Jane does.
Didn't she have clothes that she wore before? After all, she was a Mayor and a sitting Govenor. I guess, they wanted to dress her up even more (wasteful spending) to appeal to the Joe's and Jane's. After all, it's the economy stupid!
The RNC would have been better off donating that money and helping families in need. Oh no!, that would have been too socialist. Well, let's dress up Barbey and Ken to look like the average Joe and Jane. There goes 'Straight talk.'
Posted by: dereck | October 22, 2008 at 07:41 AM
"Why no story on Obamas Wardrobe cost?"
-If you look into this, its because the group that found out about the expenses (Politico) said :
1. 150k *at least* has been spent on Palins
2. They couldnt identify any similar expenses on the Dem side
The blog doesnt mention them.. because they arent known to exist.. or they are minimal enough to not stand out of monthly reports..
Its hard to hide reported reciepts of 50k from Saks Fifth Avenue and 75k from Neiman Marcus..
how about $4,700 for hair and makeup
makes those John Edwards haircuts youve mocked seem minor..
I wonder how Joe the plumber feels about all of this?
Posted by: Jay Chris | October 22, 2008 at 07:35 AM
Seriously folks...here is a real issue.
Palin supports unAmerican hate with a smile and a blessing...
Real proof that Palin is unAmerican or really stupid
Palin endorses an unAmerican political group, the Alaska Independence Party. The AIP hates the US Government and Palin is their buddy. Just search on Palin and AIP on You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its
Posted by: kalster | October 22, 2008 at 07:33 AM
For daniel necci,
There is a story on Obama's or Biden's wardrobe cost in the same politico article
"A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending."
end of story. Doesn't get much simpler than that. Talk about wealth redistribution. I hope anyone voting for McCain knows that they are also voting for Palin's entire family to be on the payroll as well.
Posted by: Pmacdee | October 22, 2008 at 07:24 AM
"Why no story on Obama's or Biden's wardrobe cost?"
Because they could find no evidence that the Democrats had passed any wardrobe, hairdo, eyewear, makeup, fabulous black boots, husband and daughters and daughter's boyfriend's and baby's clothes on to the taxpayers.
Since the RNC footed the bill for Palin's excesses, the cost for them is footed by the taxpayers.
That's us. We funded Palin's uberfabulous shopping spree and real-American makeover.
There was a mention in another article that Joe Biden pays a local barber $20 for his haircuts, if it makes you feel any better.
Posted by: ZenCat | October 22, 2008 at 07:23 AM
Just imagine how many chicken one could buy for $150,000.
Posted by: Buzz Wattson | October 22, 2008 at 07:22 AM
>>Why no story on Obama's or Biden's wardrobe cost?
From the Politico story referenced above: "A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html
Posted by: Joe | October 22, 2008 at 07:22 AM
Daniel asks why no story on Obama or Biden's wardrobe costs.
Perhaps because the RNC or the DNC didn't pay for their wardrobes?
Posted by: mdj | October 22, 2008 at 07:21 AM
Say it ain't so Saracuda! What are ya gonna say to all those WalMart Moms and JC Penny Moms now? That red leather Michael Jackson number looks downright unAmerican to me! The joke was that you thought Couture was a snarky right-wing pundit named Ann.
Posted by: chappie | October 22, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Daniel - I take it you are a Republican. There is no mention of Obama, Biden and McCain's wardrobes, as they probably pay it from their own pocket. I do not know whether you are a contributor to the campaign fund. If I were an Andy Average salary earner and contributed to the campaign fund, I would be fuming to see my hard earned money being used this way; at 50K p.a., it probably takes me 20 years to save that amount of dough. Palin sure knows how to make hay while the sunshine. Which won't be for much longer. Then back to Alaska to fleece her constituent.
Posted by: nagamas | October 22, 2008 at 07:19 AM
C'mon GOP spread the wealth! Could you get Joe-the-plumber a Cabelas gift card? How about a 24-pack for Joe Sixpack?
Posted by: Souc | October 22, 2008 at 07:19 AM
"Why no story on Obama's or Biden's wardrobe cost?"
Because there is no story. Politico also looked through the DNC's records and reported that it found no similar wardrobe expenditures.
Posted by: ThatGuy | October 22, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Daniel,
As reported by CBS News,
"Politico told CBS News it hasn't been able to identify any similar expenditures on the Democratic side."
Posted by: anonymous | October 22, 2008 at 07:18 AM