Campaign fund spending and subsequent reactions [modified]
-
I'll start by saying I don't have an opinion on how candidates spend the money that is donated to them. I think its a red herring and a cheap tactic at avoiding real issues. But, I do find this very amusing. There was quite a stir on forums everywhere and in the media regarding John Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut. Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Really? Are you kidding me? If a common fellow makes 10 dollars an hour, then a weeks pay is John's haircut. Compared to 7 1/2 years pay for a wardrobe. Now, why again was it unacceptable for John to pay 400 for a haircut but its acceptable for Palin, or rather the RNC, to pay 150,000 on wardrobe? [edit] removed email notification [/edit]
I've heard more said about less.
modified on Friday, October 24, 2008 7:58 PM
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
I'll start by saying
repost. I'll explain it to you though so you don't lose any sleep over the weekend. Once the campaign is over, the clothes will be donated to charity. the selected charity or charities will auction off the clothes as these will have historical significance, regardless of who wins the race. the action should bring in much more than the original expense. == on John Edwards: he was such a puff piece that the haircut was the only substantial thing he had ever done, except royally fuck over some health insurance company with a fraudulant law suit. ===
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe.
Not at all. The joke is the New York Times worrying about it without questioning: Why Barry Obama runs to his grand mother's bedside to see her before she dies when the most recent public picture of the two of them together is 20 years old, Or why the stock market is tanking in anticipation of curious George getting elected. Or how could Barry have not known about the voter registration fraud being conducted by ACORN. Or why does a man like Barry lie about his vote against poreserving the live of a baby that survives late term abortion. Or how could Barry associate: with an American terrorist, and, with a man, Farrakhan, who heads the Nation of Islam that is dedicated to the over throw of whitey, and, with a preacher that espouses hate for white America. Or who would have surrendered Iraq to Al-Q. Or would invade Pakistan. Or who thought it was Georgia's fault that Russia invaded. Or who is proposing to implement a Chavez style transfer of wealth, utterly destroying the underlying premise of America.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I'll start by saying I don't have an opinion on how candidates spend the money that is donated to them. I think its a red herring and a cheap tactic at avoiding real issues. But, I do find this very amusing. There was quite a stir on forums everywhere and in the media regarding John Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut. Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Really? Are you kidding me? If a common fellow makes 10 dollars an hour, then a weeks pay is John's haircut. Compared to 7 1/2 years pay for a wardrobe. Now, why again was it unacceptable for John to pay 400 for a haircut but its acceptable for Palin, or rather the RNC, to pay 150,000 on wardrobe? [edit] removed email notification [/edit]
I've heard more said about less.
modified on Friday, October 24, 2008 7:58 PM
Here is a potential argument: John Edwards was a champion for people in poverty and he believed in 2 Americas. His critics considered him hypocritical when he spent such lavish amounts on haircuts. Now in case of Palin, the argument is that she is going to donate all those clothes to charity. People will defend their politicians/heroes no matter what they do. I feel however that it is up to the people who are donating money to decide whether it has been used appropriately or not. I don't trust any politician to use my money appropriately so I don't donate to politicians.
Proud to be a CPHog user
-
Here is a potential argument: John Edwards was a champion for people in poverty and he believed in 2 Americas. His critics considered him hypocritical when he spent such lavish amounts on haircuts. Now in case of Palin, the argument is that she is going to donate all those clothes to charity. People will defend their politicians/heroes no matter what they do. I feel however that it is up to the people who are donating money to decide whether it has been used appropriately or not. I don't trust any politician to use my money appropriately so I don't donate to politicians.
Proud to be a CPHog user
I wasn't really seeking an answer, the question was rhetorical. It was to stir discussion, but thanks for the answer. But, to be fair Sarah is also claiming to be a champion of the common person. That's why I think this is so funny. Guess it just smacks of hypocrisy to me.
I've heard more said about less.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
I'll start by saying
repost. I'll explain it to you though so you don't lose any sleep over the weekend. Once the campaign is over, the clothes will be donated to charity. the selected charity or charities will auction off the clothes as these will have historical significance, regardless of who wins the race. the action should bring in much more than the original expense. == on John Edwards: he was such a puff piece that the haircut was the only substantial thing he had ever done, except royally fuck over some health insurance company with a fraudulant law suit. ===
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe.
Not at all. The joke is the New York Times worrying about it without questioning: Why Barry Obama runs to his grand mother's bedside to see her before she dies when the most recent public picture of the two of them together is 20 years old, Or why the stock market is tanking in anticipation of curious George getting elected. Or how could Barry have not known about the voter registration fraud being conducted by ACORN. Or why does a man like Barry lie about his vote against poreserving the live of a baby that survives late term abortion. Or how could Barry associate: with an American terrorist, and, with a man, Farrakhan, who heads the Nation of Islam that is dedicated to the over throw of whitey, and, with a preacher that espouses hate for white America. Or who would have surrendered Iraq to Al-Q. Or would invade Pakistan. Or who thought it was Georgia's fault that Russia invaded. Or who is proposing to implement a Chavez style transfer of wealth, utterly destroying the underlying premise of America.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'll explain it to you though so you don't lose any sleep over the weekend.
How condescendingly kind of you.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Or why the stock market is tanking in anticipation of curious George getting elected.
Whatever that means. Sounds potentially racist. I'm libertarian by the way. A Ron Paul supporter. Don't make any false assumptions about your target audience.
I've heard more said about less.
-
I wasn't really seeking an answer, the question was rhetorical. It was to stir discussion, but thanks for the answer. But, to be fair Sarah is also claiming to be a champion of the common person. That's why I think this is so funny. Guess it just smacks of hypocrisy to me.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
ir Sarah is also claiming to be a champion of the common person
Yes, but she is donating the dresses to the common man too:). I am not sure whether this donation was decided after the press made such a big deal. But either way there is a reasonable defensive argument here. But I don't agree with the whole campaign money and the election process. Probably, the idea of 300+ townhall debates would have been a better idea.
Proud to be a CPHog user
-
I wasn't really seeking an answer, the question was rhetorical. It was to stir discussion, but thanks for the answer. But, to be fair Sarah is also claiming to be a champion of the common person. That's why I think this is so funny. Guess it just smacks of hypocrisy to me.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
It was to stir discussion,
So, actually you're just trolling? How does this help us select a leader? What happened to Obama's and McCains pledges to run a civil campaign on the issues? How inconsequential is $150K for wardrobe (Appearently not solicited by the candidate) compared to a $700M bailout of investment bakers (which may be helpeing them, but seems to have done little to ease the credit crunch or calm the equity markets)? When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face? How do we stop people (like yourself) who bring up these stupid ,irrelevant, inconsequential crap issues and distract attention from the real issues that need to be the basis of our decision?
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
It was to stir discussion,
So, actually you're just trolling? How does this help us select a leader? What happened to Obama's and McCains pledges to run a civil campaign on the issues? How inconsequential is $150K for wardrobe (Appearently not solicited by the candidate) compared to a $700M bailout of investment bakers (which may be helpeing them, but seems to have done little to ease the credit crunch or calm the equity markets)? When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face? How do we stop people (like yourself) who bring up these stupid ,irrelevant, inconsequential crap issues and distract attention from the real issues that need to be the basis of our decision?
Rob Graham wrote:
When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face? How do we stop people (like yourself) who bring up these stupid ,irrelevant, inconsequential crap issues and distract attention from the real issues that need to be the basis of our decision?
There seem to be people far more comfortable with inconsequentiality than with actually looking at what these two people (McCain, Obama) will be faced with and what kind of leadership they might provide. Anyway, you got my five.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
I'll start by saying
repost. I'll explain it to you though so you don't lose any sleep over the weekend. Once the campaign is over, the clothes will be donated to charity. the selected charity or charities will auction off the clothes as these will have historical significance, regardless of who wins the race. the action should bring in much more than the original expense. == on John Edwards: he was such a puff piece that the haircut was the only substantial thing he had ever done, except royally fuck over some health insurance company with a fraudulant law suit. ===
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe.
Not at all. The joke is the New York Times worrying about it without questioning: Why Barry Obama runs to his grand mother's bedside to see her before she dies when the most recent public picture of the two of them together is 20 years old, Or why the stock market is tanking in anticipation of curious George getting elected. Or how could Barry have not known about the voter registration fraud being conducted by ACORN. Or why does a man like Barry lie about his vote against poreserving the live of a baby that survives late term abortion. Or how could Barry associate: with an American terrorist, and, with a man, Farrakhan, who heads the Nation of Islam that is dedicated to the over throw of whitey, and, with a preacher that espouses hate for white America. Or who would have surrendered Iraq to Al-Q. Or would invade Pakistan. Or who thought it was Georgia's fault that Russia invaded. Or who is proposing to implement a Chavez style transfer of wealth, utterly destroying the underlying premise of America.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Why Barry Obama runs to his grand mother's bedside to see her before she dies when the most recent public picture of the two of them together is 20 years old,
Well, you do have to remember that she is scared of black guys.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I'll start by saying I don't have an opinion on how candidates spend the money that is donated to them. I think its a red herring and a cheap tactic at avoiding real issues. But, I do find this very amusing. There was quite a stir on forums everywhere and in the media regarding John Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut. Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Really? Are you kidding me? If a common fellow makes 10 dollars an hour, then a weeks pay is John's haircut. Compared to 7 1/2 years pay for a wardrobe. Now, why again was it unacceptable for John to pay 400 for a haircut but its acceptable for Palin, or rather the RNC, to pay 150,000 on wardrobe? [edit] removed email notification [/edit]
I've heard more said about less.
modified on Friday, October 24, 2008 7:58 PM
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe.
There is nothing to defend. No one felt the need to defend Hillary's $5000 pant suits. Palin is not from a wealthy family and didn't have appropriate attire for the campaign. The republicans paid for it themselves rather than illegally taking gifts from fashion shops the way democrats typically do. It actually speaks volumns about the integrity of McCain and Palin.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
It was to stir discussion,
So, actually you're just trolling? How does this help us select a leader? What happened to Obama's and McCains pledges to run a civil campaign on the issues? How inconsequential is $150K for wardrobe (Appearently not solicited by the candidate) compared to a $700M bailout of investment bakers (which may be helpeing them, but seems to have done little to ease the credit crunch or calm the equity markets)? When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face? How do we stop people (like yourself) who bring up these stupid ,irrelevant, inconsequential crap issues and distract attention from the real issues that need to be the basis of our decision?
Rob Graham wrote:
When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face?
This was the point underlying my post. The 400 dollar haircut was supposed to look ridiculous when contrasted with 150,000 on a wardrobe. Really, 400 out of millions is not something that should cause such an issue. Especially when the wardrobe is defensible. I don't have a problem with either expenditure. What I take issue with is people choosing to focus on red herrings instead of the real issues. So, when people choose to focus on Edwards haircut instead of his policies I call it crap. Doesn't matter the reasons. The reasons stated was that he's fighting for common people and the haircut causes a divide and reflects how out of touch he is, but when Palin does the same thing its acceptable, even when she's running a front of fighting for the common people and somehow isn't out of touch with a 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Not common at all. The donation is irrelevant. Both the haircut and the clothes are irrelevant. What's relevant is that both sides are choosing to focus on this crap. I'm sure that if I dig through the archives I'll find the same people who are saying the wardrobe is acceptable, are saying that the haircut wasn't acceptable. That's my point. And this isn't a troll. It was meant to stir discussion on how people focus on this petty meaningless crap when its the other side doing it but turn around and defend their own people when they do it. Double standards.
I've heard more said about less.