Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The Wardrobe to Nowhere

It is just incredible that Sarah Palin feigns wonder at why her $150,000 plus wardrobe became such a hot-button item late in the Presidential campaign:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she was puzzled by the amount of attention her wardrobe got at the end of her unsuccessful vice presidential run.

In an interview that aired on Fox News Channel on Monday, Palin said she neither wanted nor asked for the $150,000-plus wardrobe the Republican Party bankrolled.

"I did not order the clothes. Did not ask for the clothes," Palin said. "I would have been happy to have worn my own clothes from Day One. But that is kind of an odd issue, an odd campaign issue as things were wrapping up there as to who ordered what and who demanded what."
Seems we've heard this line of argument before. The last time the issue of profligate spending connected to someone or something from Alaska surfaced, it had to do with some outrageous "bridge to nowhere." And just like then, Sarah Palin, Maverick reformer that she is, said "NO" to that bridge to nowhere. Except that she didn't. And even after public outcry over that infamous earmark forced her to back off the project and claim she never really wanted it in the first place and that it wasn't her doing, she still kept the money.

Just like that wardrobe. She says she didn't order the clothes and she didn't ask for the clothes. Maybe that's true. But she sure as heck didn't say "NO" to them! She sure as heck didn't worry about the expense of them! And she sure didn't voice any concerns about it until it was brought out into the light of day -- until that particular "earmark" came out of the shadows. She goes around saying that the most she ever asked for now and then was a Diet Dr. Pepper. But she gobbled up every perq, benefit, and piece of campaign pork that was thrown at her without so much as a blink. Of course, we all know that Sarah Palin is not one to blink at things and likes to "plow through" open doors -- even if it comes across as a gross excess of feeding at the trough of others. If this woman is the future of the GOP, God help the GOP.

3 comments:

Don_cos said...

“said "NO" to that bridge to nowhere. Except that she didn't.” ~ Huck

Obama didn’t say no to Wright. He didn’t say no to Ayers. He didn’t say no to Acorn. He didn’t say no to Farrakhan, He didn’t say no to $6.000 suits. But you have a problem with Palin’s wardrobe?

Don’t lower yourself to this level. You guys won. You should try being more gracious.

Or is this the lefts idea of bridging gaps and bringing both sides together?

Huck said...

Don_cos - Well, it does kinda bother me that she ran on a platform of fiscal restraint and moderation, but didn't live up to that platform herself. Doesn't that bother you?

And I'd love to bridge gaps and bring both sides together, but it's become very clear (at least at RWN) that many conservatives are having none of this "unify" talk from liberals.

I do think there is a responsible and respectable conservatism that I am very willing to engage with. But I don't think Sarah Palin represents that. She thinks I don't represent the "real America" -- I take offense at that. And as far as criticism of Palin is concerned, this posting of mine is pretty mild.

Don_ said...

”And I'd love to bridge gaps and bring both sides together, but it's become very clear (at least at RWN) that many conservatives are having none of this "unify" talk from liberals.” ~ Huck

I also believe that we need to find some middle ground. But so many on the left have gone so far out of their way to vilify anything from the right, that there is going to be some backlash from conservatives. The left is not truly interested in unity. They are interested in have their way, period. For example, the post on RWN showing the liberals calling for compromise and unity. This is not the left’s position when it comes to things that are important to conservatives. It is only occurring when they believe that they have the upper hand. What it really means is come on and do things our way.

If these people really wanted a moderate who reaches across party lines, McCain would now be the President Elect. Not Obama, the most liberal senator we have. Obama claims to want to bring us all together, but he is a divider not a uniter.

As I have said before, if Obama does in fact become a good president I will support him. But I do not believe that he will be. He cannot do the things that he has promised and be a good leader for this country.


”I do think there is a responsible and respectable conservatism that I am very willing to engage with. But I don't think Sarah Palin represents that. She thinks I don't represent the "real America" -- I take offense at that. And as far as criticism of Palin is concerned, this posting of mine is pretty mild.” ~ Huck

I do believe that you are one of the liberals who is willing to compromise. However, it is not liberals like you who are running the democratic party.

You may not believe that Palin represents you, but then I don’t believe that a politician from the Chicago political machine who has publically insulted rural Americans represent me. I am not a bitter gun owner who clings to religion. So it seems that that knife cutes both ways. But a couple of things that Palin does offer that Obama does not. She truly is a political outsider. She rose to her position by fighting corruption inside her own party. Obama is a insider from the corrupt Chicago political machine, who only rejects corrupt people when it is revealed to the public and is therefore politically expedient. He has done nothing to fight corruption on his side.

To repeat myself, I am trying to keep an open mind and wait to see how Obama performs. If he leads well, I will support him. So hopefully I am wrong about him.