Weren’t Sarah Palin’s Campaign Clothes Supposed to be Returned?
Maybe Sarah Palin is still sorting through the luggage? For reference:
She said Palin asked that everything not belonging to her - including clothes - be taken off her campaign plane in Phoenix before she returned to Alaska on Wednesday.
That didn’t happen, according to the Anchorage Daily News, so Palin and another aide were going through the luggage, sorting through what belongs to Palin and what does not.
The clothes are ‘not her property. It’s the property of either the RNC or the campaign and so they have said it will go to charity. The governor would love for it to go to an Alaska charity but I don’t know,” said Ms Stapleton.
From October 18th:
And today, December 1st:
Notice anything similar?
December 1, 2008 6:07 pm 
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
; ?>/images/feed-icon-16x16.gif){kind=icon}
Have you ever heard the phrase, “Get over it.” You won. Just maybe she owns this one.
Or maybe they didn’t get to this suitcase yet.
sorry, can’t “Get over” Grifter Spice “Hillbillies from Wasilla”!!!!
You get over it, she is nothing but a grifter and pretend Governor. Alaska should impeach her ASAP!
And get someone who will govern.
She’s outright liar too, she claimmed the clothes weren’t hers yet she was seen at the ADN interview when she got back to ALASKA after LOSING, she was wearing the same jacket as she wore when she debated Joe Biden.
Cindy, what’s there to get over? Promises were made that the clothing in question would be returned, so where’s the harm in questioning whether or not that’s been done. And you know full well if the shoe were on the other foot, you’d be screaming if Barack Obama bought some fancy new duds with campaign money, promised to return said duds after the election, and then failed to do so.
Good catch.
Blah, blah, blah! The left’s infatuation with Sarah Palin is weird. What do you care if the RNC is out a chunk of money. It’s also funny that the people on the left keep using Barak Obama as a hypothetical argument to Sarah Palin. Again, wasn’t Barak Obama running for PRESIDENT and Sarah Palin was selected as the VICE President? If JOE BIDEN had bought some fancy duds with the DNC’s money and promised to return them and didn’t, nobody would give a rats @ss.
I’ll go along with the general “so what” attitude here. First of all, there’s no indication that this is part of the purchased wardrobe. Second, the RNC bought the clothes, they didn’t steal them, so if the RNC wants her to keep any of them she might feel like keeping I don’t see a big deal. And if your point is she’s politician that fails to keep promises, that’s still a “so what” issue. I haven’t seen one yet that kept their promises, from any party.
Sarah Palin’s had her fifteen minutes. It’s time to move past her and get on with something more relevant. Stupid bits of “gotcha” journalism are counterproductive.
You want to try and justify it by saying “but *they* would do it!” and I’ll simply hand you back one the best lines from West Wing: “You’re supposed to be the Good Guys. Act like it!”
Continual sniping at a candidate that has already lost doesn’t do anything but prove you’re ruthless and compassionless. It also cuts the legs out from under any attacks you might care to make on republican policies that lack compassion.
You want to know why I’m not a democrat? Posts like this one. I’d be ashamed to be associated with a group with this attitude.
I wouldn’t take it so seriously as some of you… It’s not some damning indictment of Democrats that a weblog post was written to poke fun.
That said, Gov. Palin is continuing to choose to put herself in the national spotlight, and as a result is open to the same kind of scrutiny that every
other politician who does the same is. She did have her fifteen minutes and is continuing to put herself on the national stage.
But for as big as a deal as republicans are trying to not make this out to be, there is something there and there are very strict rules in place for gifts like this from political action committee’s.
You can’t, and shouldn’t, just overlook that because she “had her 15 minutes” and somehow that puts her beyond the rules that every other elected official is subject to.
You R wingnuts are clueless! Who cares about Sarah’s clothes? The Ethics of the Election, that’s who! It is being investigated by CREW. It is a violation to use campaign $ for wardrobe, you knobs!
I think the entire nation would be grateful if Andy Wharhol would come back from the dead and politely inform scary Sarah that her fifteen minutes of fame are up.
cali grl,
“R wingnuts are clueless!”?? “….you knobs.”? Way to have a civil conversation. But I guess that sort of hostility is not completely surprising.
Now wait, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are investigating whether or not Sarah Palin is trying to keep CLOTHES that the RNC purchased 2 months ago that have not been returned??? WOW, for that group to go after Palin for this egregious, ethical misdeed, Washington must be cleaned up of all of the other “lesser” offenses by our Federal politicians….. God, I hope they get to the bottom of this, and throw the book at her. That will teach that no-good, lying, grifter to keep a jacket. (Hope you got the sarcasm cali)
Technically they said the clothes would be auctioned for charity, so really its the charities that are losing, especially, of course the children.
And I’m pretty sure there are a few talk show hosts (and right wing bloggers) who would pay a good sum if there were, you know, some underwear involved.
Sean:
“That will teach that no-good, lying, grifter to keep a jacket.”
And yes CREW is investigating. “One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.”Rolling stone
Not that I care if Sarah gets some clothes that were paid for by some Republican donor who must feel like a huge sucker right now. Except that it’s against campaign finance rules - you know, that McCain - Feingold thing that made him all “mavericky.” A real maverick would auction those jackets on EBay just like that jet.
If they can’t get their hands on the underwear, those right-wing bloggers who “saw starbursts” would surely pay big bucks for a silk jacket with the sweet smell of Sarah. And since the proceeds would go to charity, it would also be compassionate conservatism.
cali grl,
“One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill.” - SO WHAT?!?! “Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. - SO WHAT?!?! “The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband.” - SO WHAT?!?!? “Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost.” - SO WHAT?!?!? An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.”Rolling stone - OOOOOH Rolling Stone; that bastion of intellectual political discourse. I’ll be sure the next time I need to get my political commentary to pick up the latest issue.
Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, it screams “red-neck”, but frankly I just don’t care. If what every person on the left keeps saying (that her 15 mins are up) why do they care?!?!? I say we pay attention to more important things, say like the “Office” of the President Elect (as if there was such a thing prior to 11/4/08)…..sorry got off point.
The “so what” factor here is exactly what Jill said Sean. There are rules about what candidates and campaigns are allowed to do, that’s the answer to “so what”.
There are rules and then there are RULES. Speeding is against the law, whether it’s 5 miles over or 20 miles over. The chances you get pulled over (at least in Milwaukee, and not by a State Patrol officer)for going 5-8 miles over is pretty slim. Why?!?!? Because of the “so what” factor. When it comes to the clothing of a losing (or winning for that matter) VP candidate the “so what” factor screams so loud it’s deafening.
Gotcha. RULES only apply to those who aren’t Republicans. “so what” lower case rules apply to those who are. At any rate, I’m not talking about rules whether it’s capitalized or not, I’m talking about “laws”.
And once again, it’s not about clothing. It’s about over $150,000 in gifts.
As far as I’m concerned the rules/laws apply to everyone. The difference is the severity of the offense. Like I mentioned in my previous comment, speeding is against the law. But, just because you are speeding doesn’t mean you are going to get a ticket… Also, I don’t know where you can assume that I am JUST giving Palin a pass. In fact I stated, “When it comes to the clothing of a losing (or winning for that matter) VP candidate the “so what” factor screams so loud it’s deafening.” NOTE: “Winning for that matter” - meant Joe Biden…..
It’s about over $150,000 in gifts?!?!? I should take that for face value, but this infatuation with Palin and her comings and goings a month after McCain lost is just weird. Posts like this are a perfect example of that infatuation.
Bill Clinton got a BJ from someone who wasn’t his wife - too bad the right didn’t go SO WHAT over that one…
Jill,
A PRESIDENT vs a losing Vice Presidential CANDIDATE….nice comparison.
Yeah, let’s keep right on movin’ those goalposts, Sean. Were you this indignant when the right attacked the Clintons for behaviors that occurred while Bill was still just a governor? Her title is immaterial, as she was one half of the Republican executive ticket. Just because McCain/Palin didn’t win doesn’t mean they aren’t still the most recent face of the Republican party, and don’t think for a second that Palin will simply vanish from the national political stage. It would be shortsighted and foolish of the Democrats to ease up on a potential future threat who is - for all her flaws - a bonafide political superstar.
My goodness, much has gone on here since I last came by. I’ll skip the comments directed at RWingnuts, since it’s obvious to anyone who knows me I’m not one of them, and just get down to tacks:
1) “She broke the law.” Not necessarily. McCain-Feingold is silent on whether the RNC (or the DNC) can buy clothes. It specifically bans such purchases from individual campaigns, but doesn’t mention party funds at all. The general custom for interpreting US law is that if it isn’t banned it is permitted, especially in this case when the law goes out of its way to specify individual campaigns, so I’d have to say the presumption would currently be that no laws were broken. Of course, nothing is established legally until a judge rules, so if someone wants to spend a few million dollars wrangling over $150K, go for it. I think it’s senseless, but hey, don’t let that stop anyone from wasting money.
2) For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been more upset about Monica than I am Sarah. Thought, and still think, far more fuss is/was made about either than they were worth.
3) Mention of CREW made me laugh, but after I rechecked their website it now appears that they think at least a few Democrats can behave as badly as Republicans. Though they’re still far from even handed, I suppose I can give them credit now for aspiring to be something more than a DNC lapdog.
4) “She’s an elected official.” Not for me, she’s not. She’s Alaska’s problem, and they’re welcome to her. On the national stage, she’s Dan Quayle Light. And we all know how relevant he is.
BTW, Nicolle Wallace categorically denies the wardrobe purchase allegations.
Oh, and before you decide to blindly hammer too many conservatives, you might be interested in the fact American Conservative, for one, published a column endorsing Barack Obama as the right choice for conservatives. Though Chris Buckley’s piece in the Daily Beast was a better expression of my own take on things. You’re slamming people that agree with you on enough points to decide their vote.
Les, when have I moved the goal posts? I wasn’t nor am I now, indignant. Now I will admit to being apethetic towards this situation, and IF there WERE attacks from the right, nationally against Governor Bill Clinton (which there wasn’t until he ran for PRESIDENT) I would be giving you the same answer I’ve given in my previous comments.
As for the title, it most certainly is material. She was on a losing ticket as the Vice Presidential nominee, not vying for the President of the United States. The office itself is important and requires greater scrutiny. That same scrutiny isn’t and shouldn’t, be given to the losing VP CANDIDATE. BTW I brought that particular nugget up because the left continues to bring up comparisons of Sarah Palin with Barak Obama (see Zach’s comment above).
McCain/Palin is by no means the face of the Republican party. I do not think Sarah Palin will vanish anytime soon but her, (as several commenters on this post have mentioned) 15 mins are up. I do not consider her a political superstar, and more than likely she never will be. If the left does consider her a threat, and they choose to pick things like this to go after her on, isn’t that the same complaint they had with Bush, Karl Rove and the like? This is a whole lot of nothing, and the fact that liberals consider it an “issue” is very telling.
“Les, when have I moved the goal posts?”
It’s moving the goalposts when people who debate politics refuse to hold their own team to the same standards they demand from their opposition. For example, Jill raised a valid point. If you’re going to take the position that this wardrobe “controversy” is less about some sort of rules or ethics violations than it is about maybe blowing too much money at Neiman Marcus and not making good on a promise (a position I share with you, by the way), then the Clinton blowjob fiasco is most certainly an apt comparison. Yes, he lied under oath, but let’s be frank - he lied about an affair. Am I condoning his behavior? Of course not, but a little perspective is warranted, no? It’s not like his lie was a matter of national security or some critical economic gaffe. It was simply a guy trying to cover his ass for cheating on his wife, yet the right used the event to castigate Clinton and render him politically impotent. At the end of the day, the real weapon they wielded was public embarrassment stemming from sordid sex tales - NOT perjury - and you know it.
Which is why your reaction to the comparison is so baffling. Again, why do their titles matter? Are we not all beholden to rules and regulations? Do mayors have to abide by the same speed limits as teachers? Instead of acknowledging a questionable albeit non-earth-shattering behavior, you instead chose to dismiss the criticism by shifting the attention to the titles of the participants. Um, huh? How is that not sidestepping the issue of the original post?
Just for the record, let’s not forget how eager the right wing blogosphere was to jump all over John Edwards for his $400 haircuts. It’s not like criticizing wasteful vanity spending is strictly limited to a vindictive left.
“McCain/Palin is by no means the face of the Republican party.”
If you don’t think McCain/Palin is the most recent face of the Republican party, then I have to ask - where have YOU been for the last half a year or so?
“I do not consider her a political superstar, and more than likely she never will be.”
Right. That’s why SHE dominated the headlines, NOT McCain. And again, I wouldn’t be so quick to close the door on Palin’s political future. She’s had a taste of the big show now, and there’s plenty of time to sharpen the Palin brand before the next cycle rolls around. Power is fleeting, and if our economy doesn’t show signs of improvement by next election season, the Democrats could face the same rejection the GOP did this time around. Don’t count her out just yet.
Sean,
We’ve had these conversations before, about how the rules don’t apply equally to every person, and that’s just the way it is. By your assessment, I’m naive for thinking that they should.
I don’t care if Sarah Palin is a (losing) VP candidate, Governor of Alaska, or a stripper at the local titty bar. The law or campaign finance rules should apply to her just like everyone else. Period. If it doesn’t, that’s a different different discussion, but I’ve been talking about right vs. wrong (i.e., the laws we have in place) and how they should be applied equally. Not the fact that, in reality, they aren’t. That doesn’t make it right.
And if it isn’t against the law, it at least shows bad judgement. It was, at minimum, a tacky situation - to stand yourself up there as Sarah Six-pack while wearing an outfit that would put the real Joe Six-pack’s kid in braces for two years. One would think she and the Party would want the whole thing to just go away.
As for the attention given this - I’d say she brought it upon herself. If she had crawled into a hole and shut up when the election was over, then it wouldn’t be the media’s fault. But, DUH, people are watching her and what she wears. If she doesn’t understand that, to paraphrase the judge in the OJ Simpson case, she’s either arrogant or ignorant or both. She made a choice to wear the freebies to campaign for Saxby. She could have worn that hideous Barbie-pink jacket that she boasted about as her own, but she didn’t.
So, I’m pretty sure she’s not entirely stupid, so her choice to keep wearing the stuff is either arrogant (we were supposed to give these to charity but what is some welfare-to-worker going to do with a size 4 silk shantung jacket anyway?), ignorant (no one will notice I’m wearing the same thing), or both (my vote).
HuffPo caught in another big lie about Palin
The Huffinton Post’s Anna Strzemien, so eager was she to diss Sarah Palin with yet another wardrobe “scandal” story, didn’t bother to do even cursory research and is caught red-handed in another of HuffPo’s many lies the site’s contributers have employed in their smear campaign against Alaska’s governor.
Breathlessly headlined “Sarah Palin Still Wearing Campaign Clothes,” Strzemien’s post includes four large photos of the former GOP vice presidential candidate wearing the same outfit when she arrived in Minneapolis for the RNC August 31 and at McCain-Palin events in O’Fallon, MO on August 31st and October 18 in Lancaster, PA, and finally at a Chambliss Rally in Savannah, GA December 1. The post is designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Palin didn’t return the wardrobe that stylists hired by the RNC had purchased for the Palin family to wear during the campaign.
Just one small problem with that. One look at the required document the RNC filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that all of the clothes were purchased in the month of September. So how could Palin have been wearing anything from the RNC wardrobe on August 31? That outfit is obviously one of her own, acquired before she became John McCain’s running mate.
Someone must have given Strzemien a little clue after she posted her hit piece, because she went into CYA mode and posted an update, asking her readers, “So was Palin valiantly recycling old clothes or defiantly wearing items from her $150,000 wardrobe? You be the judge.”
http://govpalin4prez.blogspot.com/2008/12/huffpo-caught-in-another-big-lie-about.html
The outfit she is wearing in the two pics above were not bought for her by the RNC. It belongs to her. You all got duped.
Les, I have not moved the goal posts, but since I’m being accused of it AND you’re commenting on the comparison of Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin, I’ll humor you. One, lying under oath is against the law. Were there ulterior motives on the right to embarrass Clinton?? Sure there were, but I’ll take a quote from Jill “HE brought it upon HIMself.” Sarah Palin did NOT break the law, and there are just as many ulterior motives on the left to castigate Palin as you’re accusing the right of when it came to the Clinton affair. If I did what Bill Clinton did (for whatever reason – even if it was to hide an affair) I would not have received the same “slap on the hand” that he got. People keeping clothes given to them in a campaign won’t get thrown in jail…. The difference is one scenario is illegal, where the other scenario is, at most, in bad taste. To clarify, I didn’t care about Clinton getting his rocks off in the Oval Office, but once it got to the point of lying under oath, it took on a different tone.
Titles do matter, especially when it comes to political news stories. You ask, “Are we not all beholden to rules and regulations? Do mayors have to abide by the same speed limits as teachers?” Yes, we should be beholden to the same rules and regulations, I never said we shouldn’t. I also agree that teachers should abide by the same speed limits as mayors. Here’s the difference, and what I’ve been trying to get across for a week and a half; when the mayor speeds and gets caught, it’s news. When a teacher speeds, NOBODY CARES (nor should they). What’s the difference in those two people??? Title. Sarah Palin WAS the Vice Presidential nominee a month and a half ago, and she has clothes (clothes people!!!!) that were given to her, and now she’s being investigated by a non-binding, non-partisan group. Bill Clinton, PRESIDENT, lied to federal prosecutors (a felony by the way) and you’re telling me they’re the same?!?!? Give me a break. I’ll fall back to my original statement, “The left’s infatuation with Sarah Palin is weird.” Again, I would say the same thing if Joe Biden were in Palin’s situation, it’s just not worth the time and energy.
I stand by my statement about Palin’s future. I paid close attention to this presidential race (for many reasons) and realized one thing, the party has NO face. There is a serious schism facing the Republican Party and the McCain/Palin ticket proved that. You ask one admitted Republican who the “face of the party” is and you’ll get one answer, you ask a second one, and you will more than likely get a different answer. In fact many will not say Palin, I being one of them. Just because you’re the nominee of a party, doesn’t mean you are the “face of that party” (see Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry). As for her being a political superstar; she may want to be a superstar, she may be posing for the cameras to capture the persona of a superstar, but just because you’re in front of the camera doesn’t make you a POLITICAL superstar. Political superstars have to have a future, galvanize & lead people to their side. I don’t see Sarah Palin doing any of those things. In my opinion sharpening the Palin brand for 2012 would be a mistake for the Republicans.
Jill,
We have had these conversations before, and I come to the same conclusion: in a perfect world, everyone would be held accountable for their actions, whether they are the POTUS, or the common person driving to work. The problem is they are not. Sometimes powerful people get away with stuff, other times they are scrutinized unfairly, the problem I have with this is it’s just not that big of deal. I like talking about right and wrong, it’s just that I’m a realist and understand that some things are more important than others. Lying to prosecutors – BAD, accepting clothes from a political parties “higher ups” and not returning them – SO WHAT. That’s it, from my point of view. The only reason that Palin’s getting hammered on this stuff is people on the left don’t like her. I don’t know if its fear, jealousy, or conflict of ideology but I can tell there is a palpable dislike for the woman. She’s been on the national political scene for about ½ year and the backlash is equivalent to that of George Bush.
Oh, and as far as what she wears, how much it cost, and her creating a “tacky situation” – give me a break. Are you telling me that the left, with all of their $2000.00 suits and their expensive homes, aren’t just as tacky and out of touch with Joe Sixpack? They’re politicians; they believe it’s their right to be tacky and larger than life – on both sides. That goes for the arrogant and stupid comments. I would lump those same characteristics onto 90% of the major political candidates. Not saying I’m happy with it, again, just being a realist.
Bottom line, in all of this is I just don’t care, and I would hazard a guess that the majority of the American public doesn’t care. Why? Because it truly is a non-issue.
Sean,
I agree that politicians are out of touch - all of them. What is tacky about Sarah Palin (yes, I know there are others as well) is that she has specifically put herself out there as “Sarah Six-pack.” She’s just like us, she really understands us because she’s from the same place, etc. But she isn’t, any more than the rest of them.
Whether is is against the rules will be figured out. If it is, I’m sure the party will pay a fine and it will be over. But the fascination with it might well continue. Perhaps because looking at girl’s clothes is more exciting than looking at boring men’s suits. Maybe because $180,000 hasn’t been spent on getting a candidate looking good before (with someone else’s money). Probably because it’s just a spectacle. I realize that there are lots of politicians in nice clothes out there, and I actually don’t begrudge her the right to look decent out there. But as I’ve said before, it can be done without spending $2,000 on a jacket, etc. The Sarah Six-pack persona, sticking to scipt, would have shopped reasonably. The real Sarah Six-pack did what all of us would do if we won the lottery, which is load up on the best. And so in that way she was being real.
Perhaps part of the palpable dislike for her is that she has crossed over that line that we expect our politicians to honor. The one where they don’t push too hard how they’re just like us, and we don’t call them on it. Joe Biden rides the train every day but he’s still a US Senator so he’s not like us. So we like the expected, and those who play along and dance the waltz of expected perception.
Jill,
Although I don’t agree with everything in your comments, you are correct about perception and how Sarah Palin may be viewed. Also, very interesting and accurate quote “So we like the expected, and those who play along and dance the waltz of expected perception.” That can be used in A LOT of situations - Thanks!
Marcia - do not try to bring facts to this blog. This blog is reserved for Republican smears - we just disregard the actual facts. Please go away.
Thank you, the management.
Yeah Boy,
Make sure you also add for Marcia:
Sean Hannity = fair and balanced
Dan Cody = bad and biased
because they aren’t two sides of the coin or anything.
Sorry Dan, I don’t think you’re anything like Sean Hannity, just trying to make a point.