Why The GOP Spent $150,000 for Palin’s Wardrobe

During the Presidential campaign, the Democrats found this tidbit of information regarding Palin.

We found it amusing because Obama took in well north of 600 million dollars in his campaign.  As a percentage of that amount, this was .02%.  Read that again.  .02%.

Most of the items the Democrats qualified as wardrobe were props for appearances in various parts of the country, worn for the appearance and returned or given to charities to help cancer, orphaned children, etc.  We would like to see Obama give back his 600 million to the poor, or John Edwards return his $1250 for his haircut to feed a starving child.

But the Democrats have made it a historic article, even though the election is completely over.

Let’s put this in perspective.  If Sarah had earned this much in a year, Obama would have given her a tax cut.

One liberal rag even published this article that poses a lie about Sarah that she wants to be the ambassador to Africa.  This after more lies about comments she made about Africa.  They then blocked all comments from readers.  The man that wrote the article isn’t worth the dirt on the bottom of Sarah’s borrowed shoes.

The same political rag published this nonsense about Africa. The writer looks like she is 12 and writes like it is her IQ.  Get something real to say guys.  There are important issues.  Lying about Sarah and imaginary people doesn’t help your cause.

Get over it dudes, we know you liberals love Sarah, but the election is over.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

54 thoughts on “Why The GOP Spent $150,000 for Palin’s Wardrobe”

  1. I(We) have also not had a husband who was part of the AIP, at which convention we spoke. We were not up on charges of abuse of power and found guilty. We have never asked about banning books, fired and rehired the librarian. Wasilla is as big as my neighborhood, and Alaska is as big as my county. So, please, put this in context. I will bet you she does not get reelected as Governor. And the 80% rating…now that people know her, it down. And, many very conservative republicans didn’t vote for her because they don.t share the same convictions. That was shown during the Couric interview when Palin didn.t know anything about ‘right to privacy’ and the constitution, which is what Roe v Wade is about.

  2. Palin exemplifies everything that is wrong with Republican America. She is illiterate, untraveled, uneducated, racist, narrow minded, unsophisticated and embarrassing. She should go back to Alaska and remain there with her meth addicted kids, who all seem to drop out of school and get pregnant. Palin is a national disgrace and she really needs to go back to her white trash hick town and get an education. She thought Africa was a country! What a useless piece of trailer trash. Go home Sarah, your 15 minutes are up. Palin is just gross.

  3. Andy Borowitz is a political satirist. He writes HUMOR. Some aimed at the right, some at the left. Humor is lost on some people. It requires the ability to laugh at oneself.
    A comments section about a satire is completely unnecessary. You either get the joke, or you don’t. You either find it funny, or you don’t. No need to comment. No left wing conspiracy here, just humor.
    If you don’t laugh at Palin’s lack of world knowledge, it could scare you to death that she could have been one heart beat away from the Presidency.
    What books and publications do you read is only a “gotcha'” question in some alternate, satirical universe (or among social conservatives).

  4. Originally Posted By Julie YungThe Republican Party and those who support it showed by their pick of this idiot woman that they don’t care about the good of our country.

    You know, I repeatedly see liberals saying Palin is an idiot. In that context, what have you accomplished in you life to give you that right? Are you a governor with an 80%+ satisfaction rating? Did you ever succeed at running for political office in your life? In fact, have you ever accomplished anything more than printing nonsense attacks on people that are better and smarter than you because you are a lonely sad individual?

  5. The Republican Party and those who support it showed by their pick of this idiot woman that they don’t care about the good of our country. They did not properly vet this woman before choosing her for McCain’s VP pick. If they had, they would have realized that not only was she not qualified to be VP, but that she is a joke as the future of the Republican Party. Anyone who has listened to this woman can clearly see that she is only worried about her own future, and not about your party or the nation. She is clearly a narcissist, and nothing more.

    It has been made clear this past week during the Republican Governor’s Conference that not only is the other Republican Governors tired of her antics, but they also do not see her as either the future of the party or as the de facto leader. It was reported that she did not even attend the important meetings about how to bring about a change in the party for the future. She only attended the ones covered by the media, and where she knew the cameras would be present, so that she could once again get her face time, and rehash their failed campaign.

    Wake up Republicans, and realize that mainstream Americans are tired of this woman and just wish she would go back to Alaska and disappear. You Republican men need to start thinking with the brain in your head, instead of the one located below your belt, if you truly care about the future of your party. There are other much more qualified women in your party who could have been picked instead of her, but it was clear that her looks were what was important, and you thought the rest of us women would be swayed simply by the fact that she was a woman. Wake up and give us women in this country more credit than that. We care much more about what’s best for this country, than the fact that a woman was running for the VP seat. She can waste your party’s money and run for President in 2012, but she will NEVER be elected President. Those of us with any intelligence see her as George Bush in drag, and that is the last thing that this country needs again.

  6. How come all your arguments for Palin are just ‘the other guys are worse’. That’s why you lost the election. Because your side had nothing to offer besides ‘the other guys are worse’.

    Palin is doing a wonderful job of dividing the Republican party between the gun tooting wing nuts and the fiscal conservatives (who think she’s an idiot). Keep it up Sarah! Stay around as long as you want. Shred the republican party. Divide, baby, divide.

  7. Sarah Palin has been touting herself as fiscal watchdog throughout her political career. But Palin’s tenure as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, was characterized by waste, cronyism and incompetence, according to government officials in the Matanuska Valley, where she began her fairy-tale political rise.

    “Executive abilities? She doesn’t have any,” said former Wasilla City Council member Nick Carney, who selected and groomed Palin for her first political race in 1992 and served with her after her election to the City Council.

    Four years later, the ambitious Palin won the Wasilla mayor’s office — after scorching the “tax and spend mentality” of her incumbent opponent. But Carney, Palin’s estranged former mentor, and others in city hall were astounded when they found out about a lavish expenditure of Palin’s own after her 1996 election. According to Carney, the newly elected mayor spent more than $50,000 in city funds to redecorate her office, without the council’s authorization.


  8. @motherlylove

    Is Palin going to be returning the tens of thousands they spent on her hair and makeup? Or perhaps she will be donating it to charity? I’m sure we could scrape some of that makeup of her face….or maybe she is going to cut her hair off and donate it to a cancer charity?

  9. @evilrepublican

    I like how your first defense of Palin is that she’s prettier than the others! And more appealing to read about! Well I’m sorry Obama is such an ugly bore, but guess what, he’s actually got a brain between his ears and he’s not afraid to use it! Sounds an awful lot like the old “well I like (insert candidate’s name here) because I could have a beer with him/her. Guess who else you could have a beer with? An alcoholic. Great qualification to be president!

    Oh, and how many times did Palin or her team bring up the clothes scandal unprovoked? And how many times have you heard Obama mention it? If Palin wanted the issue over with, maybe SHE should quit talking about it!

  10. @evilrepublican

    Yes it was satire! If you didn’t realize that, then that means you must also believe Africa is a country like your hero! You don’t need to state a piece is satire when it is painfully obvious that is the case! Kinda the point of satire…… stating it is satire kinda ruins the fun. But I guess when your type doesn’t realize that Africa is actually a CONTINENT then maybe the satire just falls apart. I’m just saying……

  11. The GOP is really making the big deal out of the clothes.

    We liberals LIKE Sarah Palin. And the only reason to come down so hard on her is because she is a lying piece of neo-crap…otherwise, she might be getting a pass for some of this stuff. Evilrepublican said it best when he said she was “prettier”. You guys are easy – why doesn’t she just do the Playboy spread now and just get it over with. With a little air brushing she might be qualified for that job.

  12. When I heard $150,000 I thought, WOW! how many years would it take for people to earn that much. Then again, it was the RNC’s (and a wealthy supporter’s) money and I guess they were free to spend it as they saw fit. I would have spent the money on getting more Republicans to register to vote. Just a thought.

  13. What is it you bible-thumpers say about a house built on a foundation of sand cannot stand? Sandy Palin is our nation’s lovable loser. Twenty years younger and she’d be on the arm of fat 65-yr-old Hollywood producer.
    I like many aspects of “conservatism” but Palin doesn’t represent it. Her “base” is the problem – the problem is the base. Just ask George Will.

  14. McCain was trying to appeal to the Lifetime Channel crowd. In those stories, a woman gets her chance and is always immediately made over and outfitted. Then she does her down-home folksy Forrest Gump act, stumps the band, wins the case, solves the mystery, takes the company stock over the top, etc., etc. The clothes are automatic; the hair does itself up, the makeup blooms on her face overnight like some mysterious beauty mold. Her clothing IS her success. Wearing those clothes means she has already accomplished–everything. They cleanse, they adorn, they are their own reason for being.

    Anyway. Shallow, looks-obsessed females abound in American society, and Sarah is, like, so one of them. They do not understand why anyone would object to pretty clothes–there’s some anonymous male donor out there to pay for them, it’s a woman thing (just like the towel–“you have to let a woman be a woman and do her thing”), why do you hate femininity and beautiful women like Sarah Palin?

    Similar to “they hate us for our freedoms.”

  15. I myself donot care about Sarah Palins wardrobe either! I also think the Media as well as the GOP should leave her and her family alone. Wow! and think… OBAMA won by a landslide!!! He wore his own clothes as well as his wife…Be happy people and keep OBAMA and family in prayer! God has placed this man and his family here for a purpose as well as you! Stop the negativity and hate! Believe me it will get the best of you all!!! The Majority of the nation has voted this man in, so please respect this decision even if you donot agree. If you donot agree, Pray! GOD BESS YOU ALL!!!!

  16. @Mishkin-Fishkin

    Well, supposedly they’re saying that since the funds from the Republican party were used to buy the clothes, she would ‘return’ the clothes (once worn ((and hopefully cleaned)) to the R party – not back to the store – so that they could keep them, sell them, auction them, put them on display, burn them, mop up moose blood with them…you know…

  17. ok..3 out of the 4 candidates goofed big time in several areas. McCain was the only one who never really flubbed it up. Lots of lies on both parties-lots of mud-slinging on both. Palin’s image was changed once she was picked for vp..not surprising-that doesn’t mean she isn’t what she said she was originally! (quote/unquote~a true American). with that said-motherly-love-you make good points..you even sound funny in some…but your condesending sweeties & dearies are annoying!!! trying to talk down to everyone just makes you look like ‘most’ of those holier-than-thou libs..PLEASE chill!

  18. You liberals really can’t be as stupid as the posts you are making in response to this right? You’re just kidding folks.

    Yeah, the liberals should have moved on days ago. Fact is, Palin is bigger news than Obama at the moment. So the rags are printing anything they can find on her.

    She is prettier than any of them. She is way smarter than the lying liberals give her credit for. And she is more appealing to read about. Even Huffingtonbore had more articles on her than Obama much of the day today.

  19. “Most of the items the Democrats qualified as wardrobe were props for appearances in various parts of the country, worn for the appearance and returned…”

    Just curious. Buying a wardrobe item, wearing it once or twice, and then returning it–is that ethical? Is it even legal? Would a store accept it?

    What would she do, wear the item with the tags tucked in, and try not to wrinkle it? Is that what you’re suggesting?

    Just askin’.

  20. Quite frankly, it’s never been about the actual AMOUNT of money that has bothered me regarding the clothing/accessory purchases for Palin. To me, it could’ve been a million dollars for all I care, the amount of money is not the point.

    What disturbed me about it all when it came to light was (1) the line-straddling quasi-compliance with federal campaign finance legal prohibitions on use of campaign funds for personal use items, and (2) the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin selling herself as some “regular” middle-class “Wal-Mart” hockey-mom American then donning high-end designer clothing from high-priced top-end department stores that most “regular” Americans never shop at, muchless buy closets full of such clothing.

  21. Originally Posted By Darren@motherlylove – Sugar Pop,
    Your accusation that the Dems are runnign a negative campaign is ludicris. In comparisson to what? McCains, Obamas a pervert ads, Bushs McCain has illegitimate kids and Kerry is a traitor stuff and not a hero, even though Bush was AWOL? Give me a break. Obama did NOT run a negative campaign and you know it.

    English Dearie, English. There are some great lessons online now to assist you in learning the language.

    Obama has pervert ads? And Bush was AWOL how?

    Obama was negative from the word go sweetie. All you had to do was spend one day on the HuffingtonPost to see it. Or watch the ads go by on television. The negative response by the Repubs started about a month after Palin joined, after nearly 2 years of political abuse from the likes of Pelosi. In the campaign Obama, Hillary, Biden and company started it the first day of the Democratic Primaries.

    Now, I have a new site for you. Dictionary.com. Have fun, it will amaze you.

  22. @motherlylove – Sugar Pop,
    Your accusation that the Dems are runnign a negative campaign is ludicris. In comparisson to what? McCains, Obamas a pervert ads, Bushs McCain has illegitimate kids and Kerry is a traitor stuff and not a hero, even though Bush was AWOL? Give me a break. Obama did NOT run a negative campaign and you know it.

  23. You are right that this was a hoax, but it was only perpetuated by they fact that no one doubted it based on her previous imbecilic comments.
    Yes those responsible should be outted but, come on she is a dunce after all.

  24. Originally Posted By Peter WinterstellerTracey,

    What “Maverick”-“Hockey-mom”-“Reformer”, shops at Neiman Marcus?

    Uh, where do all women politicians shop? Most of her stuff didn’t come from Marcus, it came from local shops. Why would you care if she doesn’t keep it anyway, it all goes back or goes to charity? Would you prefer she wear rags? Obama is wearing $1000 suits and $500 shoes. Get off your high horse.

    It isn’t the point of the article anyway. It is how in love you guys are with Sarah and how stupid it is to continually bring the issue up. Election is over dude. Get over it and Sarah.

    Originally Posted By Peter WinterstellerTracey,

    True or not, it makes her look so phony.

    A good point, because most if it is lies, published by the Dems to discredit Sarah Palin. They ran dirty politics for years and now that the election is over, they continue. The only one that seems to be on topic here is Obama himself. How Obama responded to Lieberman and his effort to demonstrate non-partisan politics is what it is about. Get with the program and off of Oprah dude.

    Originally Posted By Peter WinterstellerTracey,
    Trying to make a moral equivalency to Obama’s fund raising prowess is just stupid.

    The article never did that, so i guess it makes you stupid.

  25. Tracey,

    What “Maverick”-“Hockey-mom”-“Reformer”, shops at Neiman Marcus?

    That is the point of riding Palin on her shopping spree. It’s all about public perception and in that arena, your point of view is losing because it does not resonate like, “Wasilla Hillbillies raiding Neiman Marcus’s from coast to coast”.

    True or not, it makes her look so phony.

    Trying to make a moral equivalency to Obama’s fund raising prowess is just stupid.

  26. Originally Posted By TraceyUm, a lot of conservatives act like Obama robbed the American people at gunpoint or something? If people donated money, um, they probably wanted him to er….USE IT TO WIN!!? Maybe?


    You are off topic. The article is about the Dems not shutting up about Palin even after the election; it was not about Obama’s fundraising. It doesn’t complain once about Obama’s contributions. Did you actually read it? Honestly, it is less than half a page. You can handle that before your attention span is spent right?

    The only issue with Obama’s contributions is that he didn’t disclose the source of nearly half of them, many of which came from questionable sources, but that is a separate issue and the topic of a great article on this site, you should read it. Then maybe respond there where your response would be relevant.

    But I have to warn you, it is longer than this one, so maybe you want to practice first.

  27. Um, a lot of conservatives act like Obama robbed the American people at gunpoint or something? If people donated money, um, they probably wanted him to er….USE IT TO WIN!!? Maybe?

    All this crap about the amount he spent and buying the election is sour grapes. I donated repeatedly and expected him to use it to win. Whether it was the rights to use Stevie Wonder’s “Signed Sealed Delivered”, the larger than life greek columns at the DNC, or a 20 dollar haircut in Chicago, I’m fine with how he used it. Obviously, it worked.

  28. Originally Posted By Bozzy@motherlylove
    So sorry that as you attempt to deride and be derisive to Obama for his fund raising.


    I didn’t deride Obama’s fundraising at all. In my response, I merely stated I think you liberals are getting sickening with all your foolish hypocritical opportunistic attacks on Sarah. I do think Obama should have exposed where his fund raising came from, and it may come back to bite him when it does get revealed, but for now, I just think the Dems have been running a negative campaign for so long they don’t know how to stop, and I would rather they shut up about Sarah and talk about policy.

    Now, please try to get your facts straight before making any more responses. K Sweetie?

  29. Originally Posted By K8KZIt was so obvious the article was a satire.

    This article was not satire. If you refer to the Huffington Post nonsense, they have a history of presenting articles that are not real as though they were, then later claiming they were satire.

    While to someone that reads the entire article, it may be apparent that the article was satire once you read the profile of the author, most of the other stupid articles published on Huffington about Sarah seemed like satire because they were so stupid in their implication, but were considered real. One of them was this $150K issue where almost all the monies were returned or given to deserving charities.

    The problem is, the Huff has tons of oil money to buy a million diggs for each article they publish to portray it as though it were fact. Almost everything they print is satire or outright lies.

  30. How does spending 150,000 on clothes for a woman who claims she is a “true American” and a compatriot of “Joe Six Pack” make sense?? I don’t believe a word of the giving to charity and giving the clothes up, why are they in Alaska now trying to get some of them back??? She was a pandering choice by a person who claimed he “put country first”, an unqualified mental midget, he had to dress her up, it really was putting “lipstick on a pig’.

  31. Sweety…

    This is a two or three paragraph article. You should really try reading it before you respond so you don’t look so stupid. Most of the items were returned. Obama spent $600 million dollars getting elected. John Edwards spent $1250 on a haircut. It is all show business dearie. The democratic campaign and media spent millions to tell everyone about the $150000 that was mostly returned. The millions go to suckering people like you.

  32. You are kidding right Hoop. The “satire” you cite was not started off telling people what it was. It had fake quotes in it to completely mislead the public. Then, they blocked all comments.

    In any statement made in this article, state the falsehood or disortion. There are none. Now go to any, and I mean any HuffingtonPost artlcle and you will likely find dozens.

  33. We all know which liberal blog wrote about her wanting to be an ambassador to Africa. The funny thing is though, that the article that you are referencing was clearly a piece of satire, much in the vein of Letterman’s Top 10. How do you bash the so called “liberal rag” for being biased when you are as well obviously distorting the facts.

  34. Sweety,

    That was $1250 for a haircut, and it was published by a liberal rag during the Democratic Primary.

    At least though, that was just Democrats infighting and Edwards did actually spend the money. This was a total fabrication and lie that was distorted by liberal rags like the one that starts with the letter H.

Leave a Reply