Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Lipstick on a Dolled Up Governor of Alaska

How much lower will they sink?

It has been revealed that the Republicans spent a lot of money on Sarah Palin's wardrobe for the campaign. The ever-fair and impartial New York Times avers that this will hurt her anti-elitist, hockey mom image with Republicans. They classify these sartorial expenditures with John Edward's two $400 hair cuts. Really, now?

The article says that Gov. Palin did not request the digs, nor did she pick them out. I'm sure something like the following happened: She did not have the kind of clothes the party bosses thought would be apt for a national campaign. So, they bought them for her. They realized that she was attractive and wanted to make the most of that. I am no fashion critic, but I do not take her outfits to be elegant, vain, or immodest. They are classy.

None of this fits the category of John Edwards's draconian hair cuts. John Edwards is a prissy, vane elitist by nature; the haircuts confirm it. Gov. Palin is a popular and populist politician. Some high-end clothes will not change that. She hasn't started sounding like John Kerry or John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, has she--either in tone or in policy? You betcha, she hasn't!

Moreover, had she not worn these kinds of clothes, The New York Times and their ilk would have accused her of being a cultural barbarian out of step with national, political culture.

Nevertheless, spending that much money on clothes is not the best stewardship. If she gets elected, I hope things will calm down.

4 comments:

ChrisB said...

I'm surprised at how much was spent, but -- as I heard someone else point out -- this shows that she doesn't spend that kind of money on clothes which nicely supports her claim to fiscal responsibility.

Jim Pemberton said...

It reminds me of Matt. 11:16-19

16"But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
17"'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'


18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."

BJ the Tornado said...

Question:
If this EXACT same story came out but it was about Obama or Biden instead of Palin... Would your opinion of the story and its significance be different?


I agree that these kinds of stories are frivolous and distracting from the main issues... I don't care about the stories of this kind, themselves, but about your varying reactions to them depending on who they are about.

Again, if this story broke about Obama or Biden would you be so defensive for them?
I think we all know how you would respond. I imagine you would find it a very significant and telling story in their case.


The same holds true for the recent story about a major Al-Qaeda website saying they wanted McCain to win. If the same exact story broke (same website, same statements, etc.) except that it had Obama's name instead of McCain's, I am sure we'd be reading all about it on your blog and it's tremendous significance.
But since it was McCain, I'm SURE it is just frivolous and contrived politicking, right?

Doug Groothuis said...

The case can be made that Palin needed more money for her appearance. Still, as I said, I'm not that happy with all the money spent.

If a terrorist supports McCain, it's like a stray dog supporting a stronger dog catcher. If a terrorist support Obama it is like a stray dog supporting the abolition of the office of the dog catcher.