Alaska’s Evita

-

palin waving.jpg
The GOP has spent $150,000 on spiffing up Sarah Palin and her husband.
Way to reach “Joe the Plumber”. . . obviously.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

50 comments on “Alaska’s Evita

  1. Kate says:

    Didn’t we just have an issue with Coleman on an something like this?

    Reply

  2. gypsy howell says:

    Will the baby clothes be donated too?
    The baby clothes have a far far better chance of being donated than
    anything Bible Spice is wearing. Babies outgrow clothes pretty
    quickly. Of course, they’ll be handed down to Bristol’s baby first.

    Reply

  3. Cee says:

    by PissedOffAmerican Oct 22, 10:37AM – Link
    ROFLMAO!!! Now the McCain campaign is saying they are going to donate Palin’s gold plated duds “to charity”.
    Heh. Doesn’t’ she still have to pay taxes on those clothes?
    Will the baby clothes be donated too?

    Reply

  4. bob h says:

    I recall Richard Nixon boasting of Pat Nixon’s “good Republican cloth coat” in the Checkers speech.

    Reply

  5. questions says:

    Under life imitates art….
    Shakespeare’s Tempest has a beautiful scene in which the drunkards Stephano and Trinculo, led by Caliban, are ready to kill Prospero and take over the island. On the way to committing their dastardly deed they come across… CLOTHING! Fancy king-like CLOTHING. They are so thrilled with the garb of rule that they lose any chance to get actual political power. But they look MAHVELOUS (to mix allusions).
    Clothes do not make the ruler.

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Dammit, I still wanna see her with her hair down, naked and riding a moose. And you can get a good used moose for a hellova lot less than $150,000.

    Reply

  7. carol says:

    If Sarah Palin is supposed to be a “breath of fresh air”….regular gal…hockey Mom..etc etc…why couldn’t she have worn her own choice of clothes that she paid for?????
    Does McCain think she needs to be spruced up to make her look more like a VP and like new clothes…expensive new clothes will make her act more intelligent!!!
    All this nonsense they are doing is not fooling anybody least of all the American people…the whole campaign has been a disaster and thank goodness it will soon be over.

    Reply

  8. roger says:

    Come on youse guyse. Don’t blame Sarah; she’s only doing what
    the republicans are telling her to do.

    Reply

  9. ToddinHB says:

    Like you, Dan, in your 10:32 AM post, I was shouting loudly back in September (exactly when, I can’t recall and I can’t search the comments section of TWN) that Palin was a mile wide and an foot deep. I also predicted that Obama would win in a landslide. Now, the latter part of this will be determined on Nov. 4, but it is sure looking that way.
    Put me down as a “I told you so.” in this campaign season. Sweet!

    Reply

  10. longhorn71 says:

    I would love to see the spending detail of Obama’s campaign, if you doubt that he spent money frivilously, you’re a dreamer. To the unnamed poster, please clarify what you are talking about. I care about the real issues facing this county, not what somebody is wearing. Image is a huge part of a campaign, we all know this. Didn’t Richard Nixon lose to JFK because he came off so poorly in the first ever televised debate, obviously people care about image and how someone looks…sadly. Truth about spending in Obama campaign:
    Obama oversees a team of 700 people–more than twice as many as Bush in 2004–the biggest, most bloated campaign in the history of presidential elections:
    So far in 2008, combined campaign-spending data for the three most recent months available–February, March and April–show that Sen. Obama outspent Sen. McCain 4.5-to-1 on staff salaries, more than 2-to-1 on office rents, and 25-to-1 on broadcast advertising, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
    Sen. Obama has about 700 employees on the payroll, scattered across 19 states. The McCain cadre is around 100, divided among a handful of local offices.
    I guess money can buy everything.

    Reply

  11. Bartolo says:

    The only way those duds get donated is if Slick Sally gets with child again.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Linda..thanks for the New Yorker link..will read…I agree with pacos_gal..the important issue is whether a person is paying for their own clothes and grooming, and not using campaign funds….in this economy, many are now shopping at Good Will and Salvation Army, on sale days….it’s far too grim for too many people.

    Reply

  13. Kathleen G. says:

    This reminds me of a time when French citizens were starving and a frivolous, air-headed queen suggested, “Let them eat cake.”
    ‘Tis time for Caribou Barbie to go back to Alaska so the citizenry there can rip into her for stealing nearly $150K in family travel expenses and per diems for staying at home, and abuse of power.

    Reply

  14. ... says:

    longhorn71 – this throws the hypocritical bullshit about looking after others wealth and the joe the plumber bullshit that makes this little news story more revealing… do you want to go for smoke and mirrors and a lot of bullshit? apparently some still do, because they are unable to see any of it… perhaps you are included in the people i am referring to..

    Reply

  15. longhorn71 says:

    You guys have got to be kidding!! Your discussing her wardrobe…please. We all know politics is 99% image and about 1% (I’m being generous)real issues that matter to Americans. If you think the republicans are the only ones to spend frivilous amounts of money on things like clothing, etc., your crazy with a capital C. Both sides do this because most people are superficial and care how a person looks. Case in point, the ridiculous discussion your having about Gov. Palin’s outfits.

    Reply

  16. JamesL says:

    My comment on Edwards was that he was pilloried for spending far less by the people who are now spending far more to somehow make Palin palatable.
    I see Jeff Larson did the buying for Sarah, who was either barred from the store for trying to bring a howitzer along, or didn’t have style cred. Everyone knows that big cities are far more dangerous than the boonies. What I want to know is: what did Larson get paid to do the buying? Knowing the GOP, it was probably in six figures.
    Just thinking about Palin is making me lightheaded. I think she’s contagious.

    Reply

  17. carol says:

    It shows how much of down to earth good ole gal she is now does it not with her expensive clothing provided by the RNC.
    Did McCain think she had to be dressed up to match Cindy’s attire…..couldn’t be seen on stage with her “REAL AMERICAN” way of dress!!!
    If Sarah Palin was such a breath of fresh air..a normal person..hockey mom etc etc why couldn’t see wear her own choice of clothes she had bought herself!!!!
    No, it’s all about image here..who cares if she’s not qualified..lets dress her up in some fancy clothes that will convince people she is intelligent enough for VP….P..L..E..A..S..E.
    What a lot of showboaters these Republicans are…do anything and everything to win this election…I don’t think it is working though….you can’t put expensive clothes on someone and suddenly they become intellectual and smart, it doesn’t work that way!!!

    Reply

  18. Dan Kervick says:

    “All the women I’ve ever dated put together wouldn’t need $150,000 from someone else to get dressed.”
    Same here, Zathras. And yet somehow, that saddens me. I would prefer to imagine you at one of Steve’s parties, with million dollar debutantes on each arm.

    Reply

  19. Zathras says:

    What payback? John Edwards got what he deserved for using hundreds of dollars in campaign funds to get his hair cut, once. Gov. Palin and the Republican Party are getting what they deserve now.
    I’ll admit that if Edwards had spent thousands of dollars on dresses and makeup it would have been worse. But, live by image, die by image. All the women I’ve ever dated put together wouldn’t need $150,000 from someone else to get dressed.

    Reply

  20. Steven Rumbalski says:

    I’m a liberal and an Obama supporter, yet I have no problem with $150,000.00 in clothing expenses. And I didn’t care about John Edwards’ haircuts either. Campaigns are about image. And if you’re a woman people will notice your clothes more, so you need to spend more.
    I’d like to think that the reason people are so focused on Palin’s clothing expenses is payback for the ridiculous focus on John Edwards haircuts, but I detect a whiff of hypocrisy as well.

    Reply

  21. tricia Marshall says:

    I guess if you take a girl out of Alaska she just forgets to say
    “thanks but no thanks” when offered a shopping spree at Neiman
    Marcus.
    I’m sure she feels such extravagance can be excused by good old
    trickle down economics: the campaign says she will give her new
    wardrobe as hand-me-downs to the real hockey moms of America
    who can only afford to shop at Walmart.

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    Let me repeat something I said before…Biden is almost enough to make me not vote for Obama.
    And ‘mark my words’ ( as Biden said)…Joe Biden thinks he is a “star”..he thinks he will be the foreign policy ‘power’ behind the throne.
    There is nothing Joe would like more than a foreign crisis test of Obama so he can rush to the spotlight and pretend to be in charge.
    He really takes seriously that he was selected for his foreign policy experience and will try to play that role. He so overrates himself and his ego is so unfettered that Joe, the star just comes rolling out of his mouth all the time.
    Obama better disabuse him of that notion very early on or we will have another half blowhard, half Cheney lite, plus a loud mouth, meddler in the VP office.
    I just find him totally replusive, all the hot air he blows with no real intelligence to back up his opinion of himself.

    Reply

  23. Alleen says:

    It was clear to me from the day after Palin’s acceptance that someone had been hired to style her hair and provide her with a wardrobe.
    Her signature “whale-spout” clamped to the crown of her head with a barrette if was familiar to me — my own favorite for weekend leaf-raking and dish-washing. Suddenly, it was gone. And elaborately twined, leavened and lacquered coiffures appeared over her spectacles.
    The suits, the shoes, the BOOTS! Yowzah! Was Cindi taking charge here? Or was a stylist hired? There were missteps like the day her cheeks were rouged in dark orange. Or that odd red leatherette jacket that reminded us all of Michael Jackson in Thriller or Eddie Murphy’s live show from years ago.
    I’m just surprised that its shocking to learn that the GOP spends campaign money trying to put…uh…lipstick on a pig. Metaphorically speaking, of course. It is one of their specialties. But that phrase implies that the effort is ultimately futile.

    Reply

  24. Carroll says:

    Joe Biden is an idiot. The only reason I can figure Steve is so high on him is personal reasons.
    Biden’s reputation for foreign policy is just than “reputation”, there’s nothing behind the reputation. He obviously knows nothing about US history and tries to wing it. He thinks since half of the public doesn’t know the difference anyway he is safe in making up things on the fly.
    Immediately after Obama is elected, if he is, they need to sew Biden’s mouth shut.

    Reply

  25. Carroll says:

    I just saw another clip of Palin doing her Obama is a terrorist thing. This woman is truely disgusting. Besides which I can’t take her screechy voice any longer. They should have spend the $150,000 on voice lessons.
    Speaking from the femine point of view I am not impressed with Cindy’s wardrobe either..that gold ballon dress she wore looked like something from I Love Lucy. And she appears to be stuck in the sixties with her hemlines.
    It’s not nice to make of fun of people’s taste but I swear these two women are like something from a comedy skit…between the voices and the clothers…gads!..but I suppose they can’t help it.

    Reply

  26. Linda says:

    Seriously do read the New Yorker article to which I linked people about how in 2007, Palin invited folks from the “Weekly Standard” and “National Review” on their annual Alaska cruises to lunch and charmed Bill Kristol, Fred Barners, Michael Gerson, Rich Lowr, Robert Bork, John Bolton, and Dick Morris.
    It’s much more serious fun than her fashion–kinda a political “All About Not So Naive.”

    Reply

  27. Steve Hunt says:

    The sale of Palin’s campaign wardrobe will raise $100 for charity for ever $1 the Bidens have donated to worthy causes?
    Think Tanks are not worthy causes.

    Reply

  28. Zathras says:

    Perhaps I missed something here, but isn’t McCain’s campaign being financed with public money?
    I’ve always been a little ambivalent about usng tax dollars to pay for Presidential election campaigns, though I suppose it’s better than making elections a contest to see who can be the best fundraiser. I’d really like to know that the taxpayers are not paying for Sarah Palin’s clothes.

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, what a coincidence, Tahoe is echoing yesterday’s Hannity show on the ‘ol AM dial. Who coulda guessed?

    Reply

  30. Bill R. says:

    Addendum: If you are Sarah Palin, you need to have a tanning bed installed in the governor’s mansion in Juneau,rewired at taxpayer expense,(tanning bed was donated) and you need to have an appropriate wardrobe to adorn that beautiful tanned body, also at taxpayer expense courtesy of public campaign financing.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, think how far $150,000 coulda gone in hiring a private eye to spy on Branchflower!
    She’s gotta stop throwing away that money on trival things, and put it to good use.

    Reply

  32. Tahoe Editor says:

    The sale of Palin’s campaign wardrobe will raise $100 for charity for ever $1 the Bidens have donated to worthy causes.
    But hitting Palin for her wardrobe is small beer when TWN should be clobbering her for her racist fear-mongering, telling Americans they will be plunged into international crisis if we elect Obama because he is a weak leader who doesn’t know what to do.
    Oh, that was Joe Biden. Never mind.

    “We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. … As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you — not financially to help him — we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right. — Joe Biden
    Right You Are, Joe
    America’s enemies will see Obama as weak.
    By Pete Hegseth
    In a stunning admission, Sen. Biden outlined — in no uncertain terms — that our enemies would test America in the first few months of an Obama administration.
    Why didn’t Biden suggest the same would hold true for a McCain administration? The answer is obvious, and hugely important.
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQ0NTEyMjVjZDY2MjY1NGE1MGNmNjIzOWNhOWIzM2Y=
    KRAUTHAMMER:
    Well, this is an amazing gift he has handed the McCain campaign. What he’s saying — he used the word “generated.” He is saying if you elect a president as young and untested as Obama, this will precipitate a crisis intentionally by some actor in the world.
    Biden is obviously a Republican plant. He could not have been invented. What he is saying is precisely what people would worry about.
    The world is not going to mess with a John McCain, but they are going to mess with a new, untested president who might not even get it right.
    BARNES:
    Look, Biden, who is a wrecking crew, actually — if you remember his debate with Sarah Palin where he set records for inaccurate comments and whoppers in a presidential or vice presidential debate.
    But, in any case, he cites the JFK example. Well, the JFK example is one where he was tested in 1961 in, I guess, Vienna when he met with Nikita Khrushchev and failed. Khrushchev concluded this guy is a weakling, I can push him around. And first we have the Berlin Wall and then the Cuban missile crisis. That’s not a good analogy.
    Think of Ronald Reagan when he stepped in. He didn’t have a lot of foreign policy experience. What was the first thing that happened? The Iranians sent back the American hostages immediately because they didn’t want to go up against Ronald Reagan.
    John Bolton:
    What he’s saying, I think, is pretty self-evident. Leaders around the world see Obama as soft, untested and weak, and they will react accordingly.
    He’s very naive, I don’t think he understands how to represent or defend American interests. And I think we’re going to learn at our — to great pain if he’s elected how much at risk we really are.
    He’s a kind of a kumbaya guy. He can’t understand why somebody on the other side of the table may not be as reasonable as he is, and those people are prepared to take advantage of him.
    WASHINGTON TIMES: Biden unleashed
    Let the gaffe machine go
    Helle Dale
    Wednesday, October 22, 2008
    Democratic vice- presidential candidate Joseph Biden has a well-earned reputation for malapropisms and misstatements. Bidenesque pronouncements such as what President Franklin D. Roosevelt would have told the American people in a televised address about the stock-market crash of 1929 are legion. Another remarkable gaffe, made in the debate with his Republican counterpart Sarah Palin, was that the United States and France had driven Hezbollah out of Lebanon – when in fact Hezbollah remains a force to be reckoned with in the Lebanese parliament.
    Yet, once in a while, the loquacious senator from Delaware finds a kernel of truth. It was he who during the Democratic primaries gave us the line that the U.S. presidency is not the place for “on-the-job training.” And now Mr. Biden has hit on another extraordinarily important fact about the upcoming presidential election, i.e. that the world is more than likely to see another “major international challenge” within six months if the election is in fact won by Democratic candidate Barack Obama and himself. …
    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/22/biden-unleashed/
    O, What a Friend We Have in Joe! …and John!
    Either Joe Biden IS mentally deranged from those two prior aneurysms… or he is a Republican mole…or he has been struck by a thunderbolt, tossed from his chariot on the way to Damascus and has been electrified into telling the truth. In any case, here is the October Surprise, delivered gratis by not just a Democrat but the Democratic vice presidential nominee, lifted from the Senate chamber and moved to Barack Obama’s side by nature of his expertise in foreign affairs basis his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee.
    As the world either now knows or will shortly, this is what Biden said-captured on video tape-in a fund-raising speech delivered Sunday in Seattle:
    “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did Jack Kennedy. The world is looking. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy [Obama]. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough-I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”
    http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/o-what-a-friend-we-have-in-joe-and-john%2C1919/
    Joe Steps In It
    Conservative bloggers are having a field day with Joe Biden’s recent remarks, in which he predicted that if Barack Obama is elected, “we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy”. Righty bloggers are describing Biden’s comments as a “mega-gaffe” that destroys whatever benefit Obama may have received from Colin Powell’s endorsement. Matt Lewis mockingly praises Biden for “making a compelling case for why Obama should NOT be president,” while Hugh Hewitt predicts that Biden’s remarks will become “the focus of the American electorate for the next two weeks.” However, it’s unclear whether Biden’s ill-advised remarks will have a significant impact when so many Americans are focused on the economy.
    BIDEN: Gaffe-tastic!
    Conservative bloggers are mocking Biden after he predicted that if Obama is elected, “we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy”:
    • NRO’s Rich Lowry: “Biden: Obama’s Inexperience Will Prompt International Crisis. That’s reassuring.”
    • AmSpec Blog’s Philip Klein: “So according to Biden, by voting for McCain, you’d be sparing the country this manufactured international crisis.”
    • RedState’s Moe Lane: “I was under the impression that Biden’s job was to reassure American voters to go with the exceptionally inexperienced natsec pick. Not to let them know that he was going to not only be tested right off the bat, but that he would probably flunk.”
    • Michelle Malkin: “Keep talkin’, Joe. God bless ya for telling the truth about your running mate’s dangerous inexperience.”
    • Townhall’s Lewis: “Wow! Joe Biden is making a compelling case for why Obama should NOT be president.”
    • Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin: “On the very same day he told us that Colin Powell should have ended all questions about Barack Obama’s national security bona fides, Joe Biden comes along to tell us precisely why we should be scared of Obama as commander-in-chief. […] Well, golly, if Obama is so untested that we will have a series of international crises — at the very time we are in a financial meltdown — which will make the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a walk in the park, shouldn’t we vote for the other guy who will keep all the miscreants in their place?”
    • Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey: “Joe Biden continues to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Barack Obama. In a stunning statement, Biden acknowledged that Obama’s lack of foreign-policy experience will provoke America’s enemies into creating an international crisis. […] Isn’t this an argument for electing someone with more experience? Why should we elect a man who will embolden our enemies and push us to the brink of disaster? Biden seems convinced that electing John McCain will make our enemies abroad much less sanguine about provoking us — which is one of the best arguments yet heard for electing McCain.”
    • Power Line’s Scott Johnson: “Biden has now topped himself, as only Biden can, with a gaffe that constitutes a timely warning that deserves wide notice among the voting public.”
    • Right Wing News’ John Hawkins: “Here’s Joe Biden making a ‘gaffe,’ which in D.C. terms means that he’s accidentally telling an embarrassing truth: there are nations in the world that don’t like America and they see Barack Obama as a weak, naive, wet-behind-the-ears empty suit whom they can easily manipulate and intimidate. Incidentally, they’re probably right about that.”
    • Townhall’s Hewitt: “Senator Joseph Biden made remarks yesterday which should be the focus of the American electorate for the next two weeks (when they aren’t considering the implications of Senator Obama’s desire to ‘spread the wealth around,’ and the reliability of Senator Obama’s promises measured against his spectacularly broken pledge to accept public financing.) […] When even Joe Biden tells you what is going to happen under a President Obama, there’s no way to deny the reality of the defeatism and retreat represented by a vote for Obama-Biden.”
    Biden’s Generated Threats
    Biden Digs Hole, Surrogates Keep Digging
    There is no doubt that Biden was not speaking in generalities about all first term presidents.
    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/21/biden-digs-hole-surrogates-keep-digging/

    Reply

  33. Bill R. says:

    Soccer moms need to look their best. But let’s not put the Sarahcuda from Wasilla on par with Evita!

    Reply

  34. pacos_gal says:

    I don’t have any thing against being well dressed or looking good. You work, you earn your money, then you decide how to spend it. After buying food, paying for your lodgings, transportation and other necessities, it’s up to the individual as to how they spend the rest, or save it, whatever they choose.
    The key thing, is that you pay for your own clothing. That is what is going to bother people. Of course now we see that it’s just borrowed clothing and will be donated. Does that really make a lot of sense, will it actually happen? Is that the best way for the Republican party to spend their dollars?
    Didn’t we just have an issue with Coleman on an something like this?
    I am kind of thinking how interesting it would be for a campaign to have someone, shopping at Target, or any other place, where millions of Americans shop every day. That is something that makes people feel connected to a politician.
    Gee, they are just like me.
    Or for instance, whenever a person gets on that private plane and takes a trip somewhere and gets off and kind of has that little smile on their face, and a hop in their step and the first thing they say is “how cool is that, I just got to ride on a private jet” Others think to themselves, yea, that IS cool, they don’t think “entitlement” because it wasn’t, it was like a treat.
    The majority of Americans do shop at Target, and Walmart (even when they hate the organization that owns it, they will still shop there) and they don’t ride in private planes and they drive regular cars.
    Politicians need to convince people that they can understand where those people are coming from, what their interests and concerns are.
    Palin made a play for that, and it has worked some what (hockey mom). However, giving her a souped up wardrobe, doesn’t play to the very people that have been supporting her. There are supporters out there, and the Republicans shouldn’t be trying to piss them off.

    Reply

  35. Linda says:

    Republicans just lost 1-3 days of news cycles on this. Can’t wait to hear Campbell or Anderson ask Bay Buchanan about wardrobe budgets!!
    Also the fashion hit so far of this election has been Michelle Obama’s dress from Black and White that she wore on “The View.”
    But on a much more serious note, MSM has not yet picked up on Jane Mayer’s article in this week’s “New Yorker” about how Palin actually got the VP slot. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/27/081027fa_fact_mayer

    Reply

  36. Dan Kervick says:

    Actually, I think Democrats should support this sort of expenditure as an example of spreading the wealth. It represents a transfer of wealth from affluent Republican donors down to Niemann Marcus store clerks and overseas sweat shop textile workers.
    Still, I would have expected Sarah Palin, Western Pioneer Mom, to make her own cloths out of the pelts from the moose and bear she killed and skinned herself.

    Reply

  37. bristol's baby daddy says:

    Did Levi get any of that bling? He’s the one who needs it.

    Reply

  38. JohnH says:

    Giving your used clothing to charity is solidly in keeping with Republican “family values.” Traditionally, the nobility passed their unwanted clothing on to their servants (in England it was on Boxing Day). Somebody should ask McCain when Cindy and Sarah plan to donate her used clothing to charity–on Boxing Day?

    Reply

  39. JamesL says:

    Don’t forget the John Edwards hairdo times ten. BTW I saw the story on the RNC Palin wardrobe-and-hairstyles pumpup in an Indian publication. I wonder what the lower castes think of that.

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Cindy’s outfit at the RNC costs a little over $300,000.”
    Is that all??? Heck, with just another measly ten grand, they coulda bought my neighbor’s house.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    How come the average American is always “Joe the Plumber” or “Joe Sixpack”? Doesn’t “Martha the Nurse” or “Betty the Waitress” figure in there somewhere?
    I hereby declare the use of “Joe” as sexist, and demand that women become subjected to the same demeaning political sterotyping that men are subjected to.
    Burp.

    Reply

  42. Sharon says:

    You know, they would have been better off picking Kid Rock.
    And they’re going strictly Better Separates and Off-the-Rack for the Palins. Cindy’s outfit at the RNC costs a little over $300,000.

    Reply

  43. Don Bacon says:

    As I recall, Dependable Dan also picked the Red Sox to go all the way.

    Reply

  44. Steve Hunt says:

    Sounds like a good time to rewatch Al Franken’s “Supply Side Jesus” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M

    Reply

  45. Dan Kervick says:

    Cindy McCain’s daily flash always seems brand new as well. Whatever happened to those good Republican cloth coats?

    Reply

  46. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!! Now the McCain campaign is saying they are going to donate Palin’s gold plated duds “to charity”.
    “Mommy, what are we going to eat tonight?”, little Jimmy asked hungrily.
    “Don’t worry Jimmy dear, we’re having pant-suit and midi stew”.

    Reply

  47. Dan Kervick says:

    I don’t usually go in for “I told you so” posts designed to show what a genius I am, but back on September 9th, Steve posted here at TWN about Democratic hyperventilation over the McCain post-convention surge in the polls, and the apparent lift Palin had brought to the McCain campaign.
    I posted the following in response:
    “Now you could say that McCain made a brilliant move by picking Palin, because it was a stunning, attention-grabbing, publicity-glomming, game-changing pick. But by the same reasoning, it would have been brilliant to pick Kid Rock, or Randall Terry, or Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Yes, you get a temporary sensation, and energize some of your base. But the sensation would be expected to fade fairly quickly, and turn to a hard negative. That’s precisely what’s going to happen with Palin.
    “Palin is in the midst of a short honeymoon because she is a blank slate that the Republicans can write on. In fact, it is hard to recall any similar case of someone who was so totally unknown to so many people being launched into such a prominent position in such a short period of time. But she is a very, very bad pick, both politically and on the merits, and is low-hanging fruit. A month from now, I predict her poll ratings will be in the pits – maybe mid to high thirties. Once the full story on Sarah Palin comes out, her only remaining supporters will be the far right kooks and lovers of ignorance and mediocrity who are her chief backers now. By October 15th, Republicans will be wondering what the hell McCain could have been thinking when he picked the extremist rube and foreign policy incompetent from Wasilla, Alaska, who will then be dragging his campaign down to the bottom. It’s not going to take long before it becomes clear that almost no one, except the crazed extremist fringe on the far right, can picture Saran Palin as the right person to be standing a John McCain stroke away from taking the helm of the ship of state, and becoming commander-in-chief of the armed forces.”
    I note today that an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday reveals that fifty-five percent of respondents say Palin is not qualified to be president if the need arises. Only 38 percent of respondents view Palin positively (47 percent view her negatively, and the other 15 percent are neutral.) In early September, by contrast, she held a 47 percent positive rating, with only 27 percent viewing her negatively.
    In addition, Palin’s qualifications to be president now rank as voters’ *top* concern about McCain’s candidacy – ahead of Bush, the economy and Iraq. The Sarah Palin pick has simply destroyed McCain’s candidacy.
    My uncanny prescience duly noted, I hereby declare that it is time to start buying stocks again. Go forth and prosper.

    Reply

  48. Don Bacon says:

    I say don’t spare the expense. Things are looking up, sartorially.
    “How about Hillary Clinton last night at the Democratic Convention in Denver? Wasn’t that amazing? She wore a bright orange pantsuit. Looked like a CalTrans worker on the Hollywood Freeway.”
    – David Letterman

    Reply

  49. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Be interesting to see the price tag for her underwear. Seeing as how the people can’t see her panties or her bras, that would be the true gauge of how frivolous her spending is.
    And hey, if we are going to ignore her blatant lying about being vindicated by the Branchflower report, her refusal to release her medical records, and the fact that she thinks she’s going to “run” the Senate, we might as well make a public forum out of whether or not she wears a thong.

    Reply

  50. dolores says:

    What do you expect from McRepublicans? They have never been nor will they ever be for real americans. Their real america is Rich and out of touch with reality. Wal-Mart Mom? Yeah right, just another lie.
    Vote for Obama/Biden

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *