This latest piece of crock from the GOP campaign really makes you wonder about McCain’s grasp on reality. First, there’s his bold prediction, uttered as polls show him trailing Obama by 13%:
"This is going to be a very close race, and I believe I'm going to win it," he said. McCain said he's been heartened by the size of the crowds and the level of enthusiasm at his events.
Gee, kinda reminds me of W, who only spoke to crowds where even those with nay-saying tee-shirts were ejected. But then, maybe old John knows something we don’t about how the election fix is already in…..
Next, McCain shifts into classic denial and projection:
He also dismissed criticism about the Republican Party spending $150,000 on her [Palin’s] wardrobe at high-end retailers.
"She lives a frugal life, she and her family are not wealthy, she and her family were thrust into this," McCain said. "She is a role model to millions and millions of Americans."
He continued to paint Obama as a big-spending liberal.
First, I read that the Palins were worth more than $1 million. Now compared to McCain’s wife, that may seem not wealthy, but compared to most of us, it is.
Second, I don’t care whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, if you’re spending $150,000 on clothes — especially a wardrobe that will be out of style next season — you’re not frugal, you’re a big spender.
Couldn’t they get one of those TV make-over shows to take her on? Surely a run through the racks at Ross and Payless Shoes would have endeared Palin even more to those "real Americans" she professes to represent.
But mostly I'm wondering, is that really the kind of role model we want in the White House, someone who is spending money she doesn’t have on fancy clothes, just so she can appear to be someone she’s not?
I mean, isn’t that precisely the kind of thinking/spending that got us into this financial mess?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Musings: Role Models
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
"I mean, isn’t that precisely the kind of thinking/spending that got us into this financial mess? "
Yes it is, but the "crock" is non-partisan. Remember John Edwards $250 haircuts.
And then there's the news about the make-up artist from one of television's "talent" shows traveling with Palin who was paid more than McCain's foreign policy advisor.
She didn't spend the money, the GOP did. Nice folks, and strategical too. She charged the state of Alaska for room and board along w/airfare for her kids. Talk about family values. Same ol', same ol'....
"The Republicans’ attempt to make the case that Barack Obama is hoity-toity and they’re hoi polloi has fallen under the sheer weight of the stunning numbers:
The McCains own 13 cars, eight homes and access to a corporate jet, and Cindy had her Marie Antoinette moment at the convention. Vanity Fair calculated that her outfit cost $300,000, with three-carat diamond earrings worth $280,000, an Oscar de la Renta dress valued at $3,000, a Chanel white ceramic watch clocking in at $4,500 and a four-strand pearl necklace worth between $11,000 and $25,000. While presenting herself as an I’m-just-like-you hockey mom frugal enough to put the Alaska state plane up for sale on eBay, Palin made her big speech at the convention wearing a $2,500 cream silk Valentino jacket that the McCain staff had gotten her at Saks.
At that point, Palin should have been savvy enough to tell those doing her makeover that she was a Wal-Mart mom. The sartorial upgrade was bound to turn into a strategy downgrade, as Palin pressed her case as a homespun gal who was ever so much more American than the elite, foreignish Obama, while she was gussied up in Italian couture.
Politico broke the news that the Republican National Committee spent over $150,000 on a “Pretty Woman”-style shopping spree for Palin, including about $75,000 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis and nearly $50,000 at Saks Fifth Avenue in New York and St. Louis.
Palin advisers did their best to spin the fashion explosion during the economic implosion, telling The Times that she needed new outfits to match the climate changes across 50 states."
-- Maureen Dowd
New York Times
October 26, 2008
full text at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Being a millionaire isn't as hard as it used to be. If total assets minus liabilits are considered, and if one has 100% equity, or close, in their "better than average" home, it's easy. We're big savers, too, and never try to keep up with anybody.
We're worth about 2.5 mil, but it's far from all in the bank. Most assets are not liquid.
I'll bet you'd be surprised how manu millionaires there are in the country. In years gone by, a studh was done and shown that the most millionaires were in Wisconsin, not NY, CT, CA, CO.
WI farmers were the "culprits" mostly. Frugal farmers driving old pickups and wearing torn overalls.
There was a book out once: "The Millionaire Next Door", I believe.
Nowdays, real money starts at $100 mil.
Of course that's what got us in this mess,but that's the way they operate-get a bunch of goodies on somebody else's tab.
Post a Comment