Then I thought about the "hockey mom" moniker she gives herself, and "the real America" she claims to be a part of, and the "elitist" labels she applies to others, and even the "pork buster" fiscal responsibility she claims to be a champion of, and decided that it is more than just an amusing little tidbit of news: It's wrong, it's politically stupid, it wrecks her "Jane Sixpack" image, and it is more than just a little hypocritical.
Oh hell: Now that I think about it, is there any candidate I would/should give a pass to for accepting something so extravagant and unnecessary, even without the specific hypocrisy applicable only to Governor Palin? No.
I don't blame Sarah Palin completely. The McCain campaign really is mostly to blame for being dumb enough to let something this exploitable happen. I also have to consider other share-the-blame possibilities: (1) Governor Palin might not have even been there on all those shopping sprees, or seen the bills. (2) She might have been told (i.e. lied to) by some McCain staffer that $150,000 is the standard cost for a campaign wardrobe. (3) She might have thought that the "we'll donate it all to charity after the campaign" bullshit was enough of an excuse to shut up any criticism.
(4) As a distant outside possibility (and the only thing that exculpates Governor Palin), it could be that while a big crowd of staffers and assistants was at the checkout counter with 50 or 60 not-that-expensive items on these shopping sprees, some person on the campaign was secretly buying himself or herself a diamond-crusted Cartier watch which tacked on an extra twenty or thirty grand to the final bill each time, and nobody thought to wonder why the tab was so high. Like I said: Doubtful, but I've gotta consider all the scenarios. I'm sure that numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 will all be worked out (and probably proven wrong) in the next few days.
Now, what might have happened is that the $50,000 that each of the three shopping trips cost included lots of peripheral costs such as travel, lodging, security, staff, tailors, porters, shipping, and things like that. Also, I've heard that some of the clothes were for Governor Palin's family as well. Whether or not those incidental expenses would be enough to make a $50,000 shopping tab seem reasonable, if this is indeed the case... well: The political damage has already been done really; it doesn't change the final tally of $150,000.
(
UPDATE:
According to this Washington Post Article, John McCain spends $8,700 per month on his makeup artist, and Sarah Palin spends $13,200 per month for her makeup artist. Deeaaaamm. I must have mis-read or mis-remembered that $5,000 figure up above.
6 comments:
I too also think that the 150,000 is pretty much far too extravagant for anyones wardrobe when it comes to people trying to show off their fiscal responsibility...
But the makeup artists, I might have to make some allowances, its not the most fiscal, but perhaps it is responsible to 'get the best' you can get, and a makeup artist for a political campaign, which definitely isn't a 9 to 5 job can make or break you. On both sides of the gender spectrum, and both sides of the political spectrum. The political crew will be with their candidate 24/7 with zero personal time, must be trustworthy with anything said out of turn out of the public eye, and to do their jobs extremely well. The money paid for that, sometimes is gold, a disgruntled ex political crew mentioning the water cooler comment about the race being in the bag because all he had was a "nigger or a dyke" as competition, would make news headlines. Not that anyone ever SAID that, just making the hypothetical argument and how that would enflame the press to no end.
I'm inclined to agree with you about the makeup artists. Obviously McCain's and Palin's makeup artist is putting in 18 to 20 hour days 7 days per week, and is the best that money can buy.
At 100 hours per week, 433 hours per month, McCain's makeup artist is getting $20 per hour, and Palin's makeup artist is getting $30 per hour. When you look at it like that, it's not so bad, is it?
Fair enough, it seems.
And, at the same time, I must say I wasn't really terribly floored or offended at the cost of the makeup artists... I was more impressed that you can actually make that kind of money as a makeup artist. (But, when you look at the hourly rate... again, ho-hum.)
Jil,
Yep, politicians just love to spend other people's money - let’s remember that money is coming from donors - not their pockets books. No wonder a billion (?) dollars will be spend in total for this election cycle. Glad to see you are including Democrats in the excessive spending of other people's money even if only for one or two sentences - but I imagine you will not waste an entire entre into your blog to highlight their excessive spending habits when it comes to light. Gotta keep going after the politicians with the R after their names and give the Politicians with the D after their names a break (or half heartedly include them in your assessment). Has if those two letters mean anything - which they don’t.
In the big picture I wish the "main stream media" would spend this much time and effort into researching politicians platforms on key issues (not let them weasel out of hard questions), and also look at their records on those keys issues. But it is much easier to pick the inconsequential campaign BS to highlight - then to actually inform the masses in what we are truly voting for.
As a side note - I, for one, will take great satisfaction after all these people's dreams and aspirations are crushed in about two years when they realize that President Obama is not the messiah - that he is, was, and always will be - just another politician.
Chief
By the way - typing a sentence then crossing it out is such a tired old cliché. It is so overused at the Daily Kos that it makes some blogs there almost unreadable. You are too talented to have to succumb to that, Jil.
Chief,
Regarding crossing out: No way would I stop doing that. It's my rule to not change a blog entry once it has been put up. People may have read it before I make a change, and then call me on trying to hide it when I make a mistake.
I may be "too talented" for some things, but I do make mistakes from time to time and crossing them out instead of deleting them is the way I demonstrate that fact.
(I should incidentally add that I do change blog posts in the first 15 or 20 minutes after I put them up, sometimes editing HTML for appeareance sake, or clarifying a paragraph that didn't come across too well, and things of that nature. And, of course, I add "UPDATE" at the bottom when additional or pertinent new or related information comes along.
Kos uses crossing out as a gimmick, like writing "Bush is an asshole" and then crossing "asshole" out and putting "nice guy" after it. That is a gimmick indeed. I think I've done that one or two times over the 10 years I've been blogging, but that isn't really my style.
Chief,
Regarding the balance of complaints against "R" versus "D" in the political posts in this blog, it is true that almost all of them are written about Republicans.
Remember that my primary political subject has always been hypocrisy. My original blogging back in the 1990s (a blog long since lost to cyber heaven unfortunately) about anti-hypocrisy used to focus on the Religious Right, but that got boring and repetitious, and therefore grew to include Republicans.
I do have a tough time calling Democrats hypocrites but for a reason: The only thing I can think that Democrats do that is hypocritical on a regular basis is restrict free speech that they don't agree with... and fact is, I could put up a blog post every day with an example of Democrats doing that. Boring and repititious.
I almost always give Democrats a pass on sexual scandals (they've only had a few in the past decade, anyway) because Democrats have never claimed that people should have their sexual practices limited by law (God's or man-made) nor have Democrats ever claimed that your personal sex lives should be the business of other people, nor have Democrats ever set themselves up as the protectors of traditional sexual, moral, and family values.
I've given Sarah Palin a hard time specifically because her inexperience and ignorance should be pointed out. It's a form of hypocrisy to believe yourself fit for the highest office in the land and then be unable (or unwilling) to answer questions to prove that point.
But anyway, Chief, moving on... Here's an assignment for you: Find me an example on my blog(s) where I've unfairly targeted Republicans but given Democrats a pass for similar behavior. Even if there are years in between the time when I wrote about a certain Republican hypocrisy and the time when a Democrat did the same thing, I want to hear about it.
Failing that, at least give me an example of hypocrisy that Democrats have been guilty of recently that I didn't blog about but based on your knowledge of my blogging habits and interests, I should have blogged about because I would done so had it been a Republican instead of a Democrat.
Now remember, Chief: Pretty much everything the government does irks you, so focus your efforts on hypocrisy only. Just because something is somehow "wrong" in your mind (as in spending $1 billion on an election) doesn't mean that it is hypocritical.
So there we go: Show me those examples. (And, Chief, I'm seriously not being teasing or pompous: I'm quite sure and hopeful that you'll find some examples like I've mentioned. I'm genuinely curious to see if I've turned a blind eye to examples of Democratic hypocrisy in the past, that I've since forgotten about.)
You are officially hired as Jungle Jil's official ombudsman. Sorry, but the pay sucks.
Post a Comment