Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 155

Thread: "Outfitgate" The Great Palin Wardrobe Contoversy Discussion 2008 (Merged x1)

  1. #121
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=bitonti;2820292]fish you have to admit there's a wide middle ground between wal mart and spending what most people make in a year in one visit to neiman marcus. it's ok to wear expensive clothes... but these are closer to obscene... and purchased with campaign dollars.[/quote]honestly, what does it matter? If they feel that the best thing they can do to for Palin to make her more palatable is spend money on her appearance, who cares? The money isn't earmarked for anything specifically, is it? I could just as easily say that filling the coffers of CBS, Newscorp, Disney, GE, ClearChannel, etc., etc., etc. with campaign funds is offensive. After all, a message is a message, if Palin's platform is "I'm a MILF" and the American public gives her/McCain their vote based on that, we deserve what we get.

  2. #122
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2820292]fish you have to admit there's a wide middle ground between wal mart and spending what most people make in a year in one visit to neiman marcus. it's ok to wear expensive clothes... but these are closer to obscene... and purchased with campaign dollars.[/QUOTE]

    No doubt Bit. And I tend to side personally with you, $150,000 is too much, VP Nom. or not.

    But being purchased with Campaign Dollars isn't wrong or illegal. And I don't think they're donating the stuff only because, as you think, they were "caught in a lie". I think they're playing what little she has to offer....her looks. Sure as hell can't play her accent, dear Lord it's like nails on a blackboard.

    But Bit, my point here has never been "what do I think is right". It's the fact that coming out so strongly against this seems, to me, to be more about partisanship and less about real offense. Yes, I know, I go to the "everyopne does it" argument alot, but when it comes to so many of the Repub/Dem issues, it's just the truth.

    And the fact that Obama cannot take the stage hom (or donate it for others to speak on?) makes the spending on that worse, not better. If Obama were the man of the re-soled shoes people some claim, he didn;t need to have a Las Vegas Show in a Stadium. But I'm okay with that fact he did, his choice, as it should be.

    In the end, I just think so much of what people focus on, especially the media, is just laghable. But I guess I have the advantage of not being for one or the other, and that makes it all so less personal for me. I can afford to laugh, I lose either way.

  3. #123
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Was "everyopne" done on purpose?

  4. #124
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    Posts
    18,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    haven't read any of this thread so i don't know what the trend here is but hearing this story I think its absolutely stupid, of course they should spend money on her wardrobe, shes a VP candidate on a major ticket

    the 150K wasn't just clothes but stylists and stuff as well, shes a woman she needs more than your average man would, but I can tell you damn well that McCain and Biden and BO's suits aren't coming from Target either

    this is such a ridiculous non issue

  5. #125
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Guido Monzino;2820323]Was "everyopne" done on purpose?[/QUOTE]

    :confused:

  6. #126
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,180
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2819988]His campaign has [B]soaked [/B]$600+ million from the private sector, impressive in an economy he claims is broken.

    Oh and campaign finance reform? Ha, ha ha ha. He meant it at the time...

    Change we can believe in.[/QUOTE]


    So these private donors didn't think they were contributing to his campaign? Or they were coerced or conned? Um, it looks like a great many people want to try and help him win the election. Lemme guess, the money given to McCain was God's will, a tithe?

  7. #127
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2820321]No doubt Bit. And I tend to side personally with you, $150,000 is too much, VP Nom. or not.

    [B]But being purchased with Campaign Dollars isn't wrong or illegal[/B]. And I don't think they're donating the stuff only because, as you think, they were "caught in a lie". I think they're playing what little she has to offer....her looks. Sure as hell can't play her accent, dear Lord it's like nails on a blackboard.

    But Bit, my point here has never been "what do I think is right". It's the fact that coming out so strongly against this seems, to me, to be more about partisanship and less about real offense. Yes, I know, I go to the "everyopne does it" argument alot, but when it comes to so many of the Repub/Dem issues, it's just the truth.

    And the fact that Obama cannot take the stage hom (or donate it for others to speak on?) makes the spending on that worse, not better. If Obama were the man of the re-soled shoes people some claim, he didn;t need to have a Las Vegas Show in a Stadium. But I'm okay with that fact he did, his choice, as it should be.

    In the end, I just think so much of what people focus on, especially the media, is just laghable. But I guess I have the advantage of not being for one or the other, and that makes it all so less personal for me. I can afford to laugh, I lose either way.[/QUOTE]


    #1 They definitely are 'donating' to charity to try and cover up the embarrassment... I can't believe you or anyone could honestly think otherwise

    #2 regarding the legality of the purchases, I wouldn't be so sure like you seem to be that they are legal. To me it seems semi-shaky ground, at the very least, to be standing on, see 2 USC 439b(2)(b) (the sub-section of Federal Election Campaign regarding prohibited usage of campaign donations):

    [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/439a.html[/url]


    § 439a. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
    How Current is This?
    (a) Permitted uses
    A contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual—
    (1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or individual;
    (2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office;
    (3) for contributions to an organization described in section 170 (c) of title 26;
    (4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national, State, or local committee of a political party;
    (5) for donations to State and local candidates subject to the provisions of State law; or
    (6) for any other lawful purpose unless prohibited by subsection (b) of this section.
    [B](b) Prohibited use[/B]
    (1) In general
    A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
    (2) Conversion
    For the purposes of paragraph (1), [B]a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office, including—[/B]
    (A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
    [B](B) a clothing purchase;[/B]
    (C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
    (D) a country club membership;
    (E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
    (F) a household food item;
    (G) a tuition payment;
    (H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
    (I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.
    Last edited by King Ryan; 10-23-2008 at 04:57 PM.

  8. #128
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,854
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did you give to the RNC if not it is none of your business. It was al above board.

  9. #129
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2820388]Did you give to the RNC if not it is none of your business. [B]It was al above board[/B].[/QUOTE]

    did you happen to see my post directly above yours?!? perhaps it wasn't "all above board"

  10. #130
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=Tanginius;2820373]#1 They definitely are 'donating' to charity to try and cover up the embarrassment... I can't believe you or anyone could honestly think otherwise

    #2 regarding the legality of the purchases, I wouldn't be so sure like you seem to be that they are legal. To me it seems semi-shaky ground, at the very least, to be standing on, see 2 USC 439b(2)(b) (the sub-section of Federal Election Campaign regarding prohibited usage of campaign donations):

    [URL]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/439a.html[/URL]


    § 439a. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
    How Current is This?
    (a) Permitted uses
    A contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual—
    (1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or individual;
    (2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office;
    (3) for contributions to an organization described in section 170 (c) of title 26;
    (4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national, State, or local committee of a political party;
    (5) for donations to State and local candidates subject to the provisions of State law; or
    (6) for any other lawful purpose unless prohibited by subsection (b) of this section.
    [B](b) Prohibited use[/B]
    (1) In general
    A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
    (2) Conversion
    For the purposes of paragraph (1), [B]a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office, including—[/B]
    (A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
    [B](B) a clothing purchase;[/B]
    (C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
    (D) a country club membership;
    (E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
    (F) a household food item;
    (G) a tuition payment;
    (H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
    (I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.[/quote]Well at least someone around here is still earning the "-ginius" title. That's a good find. It seems irrational to me, honestly - there's a lot of money spent nowadays that is less 'necessary' or less justifiable as a campaign cost than new clothes or styling. But the law's the law.

  11. #131
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Semi-related:


    Sarah Palin On SNL: Costume Designer Says She Wanted Nicer Clothes

    The "Saturday Night Live" costume designer Wednesday night revealed the struggle he had in dressing Sarah Palin: she wanted to wear nicer clothes than they had picked out for her, reflecting the new image she has carefully constructed on the campaign trail.

    While Palin's transformation from hockey mom to fashion plate has raised eyebrows, her "SNL" character, played by Tina Fey, has remained firmly in the red jacket. And according to Women's Wear Daily's Irin Carmon, "SNL" costume designer Tom Broecker said Wednesday night that dressing Palin for last Saturday's cameo required a compromise:

    Of Palin, Broecker said, "In speaking with her, I had to get her to understand why she needed to wear the same thing as Tina [Fey]. We had gone off and created it for the first time a month ago, a look we identified as Sarah Palin. She had moved on in her own image of herself. I said, 'I know you've moved on * you're wearing tighter clothes, more black * but this is the character of Sarah Palin.''


    The compromise, he said, was Palin returning in her own clothes the second time she appeared on the show to cheer on Amy Poehler's Palin-themed rap.

    [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/sarah-palin-on-snl-costum_n_137248.html[/url]

  12. #132
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    OOOOHHHH... it all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

    the drastic differences in climate require many different types of clothing... add all the different required clothing up and you come up with the nice small sum of $150,000.00... LOL you can't make this sh!t up!!!


    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23palin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin[/url]

    "Advisers to Ms. Palin said on Wednesday that the purchases — which totaled about $150,000 and were classified as “campaign accessories” — were made on the fly after Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate on Aug. 29 and [b]needed new clothes to match climates across the 50 states.[/b]"


    "Party officials, who said they had discussed the matter with McCain and Palin advisers, said all concerned wanted Ms. Palin to present herself as a fashionable-but-sensible on-the-go working mother — a multilayered sartorial strategy, in other words, that has yielded an array of well-cut jackets and skirts, [b]suitable for the different seasons and state climates.[/b]"

  13. #133
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    LOL



    [url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14879.html[/url]

    McCain: 'She needed clothes'

    According to financial disclosure forms, the RNC shelled out thousands of dollars in the days following the announcement that Palin would be McCain’s running mate.
    Photo: AP

    John McCain defended the Republican National Committee’s decision Thursday to spend more than $150,000 dollars on clothing and accessories for running mate Sarah Palin.

    “She needed clothes at the time,” McCain told a group of Florida reporters.

    ...

  14. #134
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2820335]:confused:[/QUOTE]

    Thought it might be an extension of the whole "sopne" thing. I don't know. Long day.

  15. #135
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [img]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/10/23/palinclothes2.jpg[/img]

  16. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=isired;2820312]After all, a message is a message, if Palin's platform is "I'm a MILF" and the American public gives her/McCain their vote based on that, we deserve what we get.[/QUOTE]

    Which is what? Another 4 years of war and recession?

  17. #137
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Originally Posted by chicadeel
    I know, I know, cheap air line tickets and staying with family and friends [B]and terrorists or freinds and family that are terrorists..[/B][/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2820158]fixed[/QUOTE]



    Hey now, in all fairness Obama's past associations have been well documented and investigated ad nauseum. His disclosure of all information that was requested has dismissed any suspicions that could arise. This information is readily..... accessible for........ anyone to......investiga..............


    Hey wwwaait a minute!
    ;)

  18. #138
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=VincenzoTestaverde;2820565]Which is what? Another 4 years of war and recession?[/quote]...that would be the 'best case', i would think. worst case, mccain kicks mid-term, and president palin nukes those commies hiding outside her bedroom window... tastefully dressed in a $10,000 suit, $1750 shoes and a $75,000 floor-length mink, of course... hey, it's COLD up there when you've gotten used to DC!

  19. #139
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius;2820373]#1 They definitely are 'donating' to charity to try and cover up the embarrassment... I can't believe you or anyone could honestly think otherwise

    #2 regarding the legality of the purchases, I wouldn't be so sure like you seem to be that they are legal. To me it seems semi-shaky ground, at the very least, to be standing on, see 2 USC 439b(2)(b) (the sub-section of Federal Election Campaign regarding prohibited usage of campaign donations):

    [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/439a.html[/url]


    § 439a. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
    How Current is This?
    (a) Permitted uses
    A contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual—
    (1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or individual;
    (2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office;
    (3) for contributions to an organization described in section 170 (c) of title 26;
    (4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national, State, or local committee of a political party;
    (5) for donations to State and local candidates subject to the provisions of State law; or
    (6) for any other lawful purpose unless prohibited by subsection (b) of this section.
    [B](b) Prohibited use[/B]
    (1) In general
    A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
    (2) Conversion
    For the purposes of paragraph (1), [B]a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office, including—[/B]
    (A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
    [B](B) a clothing purchase;[/B]
    (C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
    (D) a country club membership;
    (E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
    (F) a household food item;
    (G) a tuition payment;
    (H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
    (I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not arguing if it IS legal or not, but why should buying clothes for the campaign be illegal if you are using private funds?

  20. #140
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,875
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2820871]I'm not arguing if it IS legal or not, but why should buying clothes for the campaign be illegal if you are using private funds?[/QUOTE]

    For that reason, why should buying a boat or a villa in Milan be an illegal use of campaign funds?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us