Forums | MacLife

Just now got a robocall from Hank smurfing Williams Jr trotting out the "guns and religion" phrase and reasserting that Obama was a liberal elitist.

I said "smurf you, Hank!" and hung up in the middle of his rant.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I think the whole wardrobe thing has it's roots in how the Republican elite really are so genuinely out of touch with real Americans they never even blinked at the idea of lavishing that much cash on Palin's clothes.

It's not republicans.
It's politicians in general.

You will find that kind of spending on both sides of the aisle, and it is nothing new, been going on for a very long time.
I remember reading about Lincoln's wife wasting a boatload of cash.

THEYALLDOIT!!ONE11!!

I didn't argue "theyalldoit"

I argued that your use of "republicans" was rather biased and blind to the actions of democrats.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I think the whole wardrobe thing has it's roots in how the Republican elite really are so genuinely out of touch with real Americans they never even blinked at the idea of lavishing that much cash on Palin's clothes.

It's not republicans.
It's politicians in general.

You will find that kind of spending on both sides of the aisle, and it is nothing new, been going on for a very long time.
I remember reading about Lincoln's wife wasting a boatload of cash.

THEYALLDOIT!!ONE11!!

however, one could argue that it is indeed more of an issue for a candidate that is running on the mavrickie "cut government waste - i will make them famous" premise, no?

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

It's not republicans.
It's politicians in general.

You will find that kind of spending on both sides of the aisle, and it is nothing new, been going on for a very long time.
I remember reading about Lincoln's wife wasting a boatload of cash.

THEYALLDOIT!!ONE11!!

however, one could argue that it is indeed more of an issue for a candidate that is running on the mavrickie "cut government waste - i will make them famous" premise, no?

Not really - this wasn't government waste.
The campaign chose to do it, and to be frank, it might pay off in votes - just like Edwards $400 hair cut.

If the clothing and jewelry purchased makes them look more presentable to the snobs who care more about image than issues, then the money was well spent.

I don't think they will win, but look at the wardrobe of anyone who successfully sells cars (or just about anything) - they spend more on clothes in one year than any of us probably spend in 5 years. When you are on the campaign trail, the same concept applies - you must sell yourself before you can sell your product.

The purpose of campaign budget is to get as many votes as you can, as I'm sure you are aware. Totally different than federal budget, where the purpose is to reward industries and companies that donated to your campaign.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

It's not republicans.
It's politicians in general.

You will find that kind of spending on both sides of the aisle, and it is nothing new, been going on for a very long time.
I remember reading about Lincoln's wife wasting a boatload of cash.

THEYALLDOIT!!ONE11!!

I didn't argue "theyalldoit"

I argued that your use of "republicans" was rather biased and blind to the actions of democrats.

res, you fail basic history. Really...
What party was Lincoln of?

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

THEYALLDOIT!!ONE11!!

I didn't argue "theyalldoit"

I argued that your use of "republicans" was rather biased and blind to the actions of democrats.

res, you fail basic history. Really...
What party was Lincoln of?

The Lincoln remark was demonstration that it has been going on for a very long time.
Why would I use an ancient Dem do demonstrate that Dems do it as well?

Re-read what I wrote. I'll bold the pertinent part:

and it is nothing new, been going on for a very long time.
I remember reading about Lincoln's wife wasting a boatload of cash.

you would remember largely incorrectly there. many folk argued that his comparatively large footprint was not out of step with a famous political character having to protect himself and his family from nut jobs, which requires an increased level of protection in the form of on-duty 24 hour security staff.

it is comparatively large next to "joe plumber's" carbon footprint, correct? probably next to jane postalworker, or bruce walgreensemployee, or...

but in comparison to similarly sized families of other active "x" vice presidents, probably not so much.

resedit wrote:

So additional carbon footprint is OK because famous political characters "need it" but spending to improve one's appearances during a campaign when it DOES HELP the polls isn't OK because ...   ????

I really don't see the logic.

As I see it, it's their campaign and they can spend the money as they see fit.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with them picking and choosing how to spend the money donated to them by their supporters; their supporters trusted them to use it wisely. 

If they feel that flying to Botswana to fling cats from Hummers at orphans is how they want to spend that money, it's their choice.

Would that help their campaign?  I don't think so, but I'm hardly a campaign strategist.  Maybe Botswanian orphans like having frightened felines flung in their faces for the sheer alliteration of it.  The campaign hasn't done it, so maybe they don't think it will help.

Presumably they think that dressing the candidate that they're trying to portray as an "Average Jane" in a $150,000 wardrobe will help their cause.   

Me, I don't see it.  It seems to me to send the wrong message as they try to paint 'elitists' as bad.  That sounds to me to be far more elitist than, say, working your way into Harvard and getting a good eduction. 

But that's me, and I wasn't going to vote for them anyway.   If you think that your campaign contributions were well spent on her wardrobe and couldn't have been put to better use elsewhere, say in actually campaigning, then that's your business... just don't expect that the other side isn't going to use the perception of their poor judgement against them.

Pariah wrote:

No one is saying it is illegal.
What it is is smurfing stupid politically

That succinctly sums up my point. 

And if it all gets sold off to charity at the end like they claim, it really doesn't matter anyway.

I think the average person understands their "Sunday Best" doesn't cut it in some circles.
And don't forget - many who wear their "Sunday Best" don't have a problem donating cash to tele-preachers who wear watches worth more than some cars.

resedit wrote:

I think the average person understands their "Sunday Best" doesn't cut it in some circles.

Perhaps.  There's better than your average Sunday best, and then there's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ … ted_States

In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.

... three times the median annual household income spent on clothes.