A Political Point
Just a thought, but is anybody else disturbed by Sarah Palin justifying her $150,000 wardrobe by saying that it will all be donated to charity?
I would have rather heard that the money spent on her designer suits wasn't coming from taxpayers; it came from the Republican National Committee and they can decide how to spend campaign money, whether it be on a big stage or on a $3000 jacket. In a way, that would have made more sense: both committees, Democratic and Republican, probably spend thousands of dollars on event details that, if revealed, wouldn't look like they were spending money wisely. But, the truth is, image is a huge part of the campaign, and if Sarah Palin needed a wardrobe overhaul, then she needed a wardrobe overhaul. Just say that, and explain that the Republicans believed that was a good way to spend their money. Whether it's donated to charity or not, that's what the $150,000 was used for. When people gave money to the Republicans, that's what it went towards, bottom line, whether the clothes get donated or not. Maybe those people can feel good that their donation was a charity donation in the end. I don't know.
What I do know is that it's outrageous to make a claim that donating $150,000 worth of designer clothes is a valid justification for spending the money on them, and that should be the end of it. In my opinion, that's a ridiculous idea. What homeless person needs a designer pantsuit? Can you really see a basketful of Escada jackets being a meaningful donation at a shelter? People always think that if they say they're donating to charity, all is going to be okay. It doesn't matter what is being donated; it's the point that something is. That's bullshit. Listen, Sarah Palin, if you're going to donate $150,000 worth of something to charity, how about $150,000 worth of non-perishable food items? Or sneakers? Or socks? Or sweatshirts? Or winter jackets? That's a useful, meaningful donation that would make a difference to people. Giving someone struggling a silk blazer isn't going to keep them warm during the winter.
I get that items donated to charity benefit more people than the truly homeless or the most destitute. And I also understand the value of giving even the poorest people the nicest things. Perhaps giving someone a Prada jacket will really be a nice gesture. I don't say no, but that isn't what's happening here. It's not like they bought her a couple suits and she's saying she doesn't really need them, so she'll donate them to charity. This all came out of a huge uproar that they spent that much money on her and her royal family (that Piper chick's been looking pretty stylish if you ask me. She's not sporting any Osh Kosh B'Gosh). Just because they're donating it doesn't mean it isn't an absurd amount of money. And just because they're donating it doesn't make it a really great or valuable thing.
This whole campaign, Sarah Palin's been out there saying she's not like all the other politicians. She's just like us! ... Except she gets to parade around in designer clothes and take her family on state-sponsored vacations that are paid for by her taxpayers (who are busy enough with their Gordon's Fisherman trade missions with Russia).
Obviously, everyone's been making fun of her for her botched interviews, and rightfully so, but in the last few weeks, it seems like her entire public and political persona has become even more of a trainwreck (if that's even possible). It seemed like her supporters could defend her stupidity as the media being too tough on her (though asking what newspapers you read... maybe mocking,but certainly not tough; and if you're really a pitbull, and you really did read the newspaper, wouldn't you fire right back at Katie Couric? I would have. I would have told her that question insulted me and I would have gone on to tell her exactly which newspapers I read. Of course, telling Katie Couric that she reads the Two Mills Gazette and The Enquirer... probably not the best choice, either.).
Anyway, in recent weeks though, they found that she acted inappropriately with that whole thing with her brother-in-law's job, and then it was found that she had doctored up some old expense reports so that it seemed like her kids absolutely needed to be included in her five-star state travel plans and event appearances, and then people saw that had this major wardrobe overhaul, and suddenly it seems like she's just as shady as every other politician. The main problem with this, of course, is that her whole stance the entire campaign is that her inexperience on the national level is a good thing because it means that she's not corrupted and while experience can be gained, character is inherent. Tough to defend at this hour.
You know, early on, when the news of Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, being pregnant broke, there was another story circulating about how Palin's youngest son isn't really her kid. It's her grandkid - Bristol's first child - but Palin covered up the whole thing and pretended it was hers. I, like most people, dismissed this as a ridiculous tabloid story. They had a few things that made the story somewhat troubling - Bristol had taken off the entire spring semester from her school because of a mysterious illness, Palin didn't look or seem pregnant until she was seven months and then she abruptly announced it to her staff, and when she went into labor she flew and then drove like 14 hours back to some podunk hospital instead of going to a nearby one - but I still dismissed all of this. Sure, she was pretty dimwitted, and she was totally unprepared for this campaign, but that didn't make her a liar.
But that's the thing. With all the bad stuff that's come out about her, you can no longer dismiss everything. She's been shown to be a liar, and she's a manipulator. As my dad would say, she's bad news. And maybe the wardrobe will be donated and do some good for some people, but that doesn't change the fact that she has manipulated her way out of this. She got the clothes because she needed to project a certain image. Be upfront and honest about it. Say that it was a lot of money. Say that it takes a lot of money to present the image she wanted to. Say that she'll donate it to charity in the end. But just saying the last part, and implying that people questioning the expenditure are wrong because of the ultimate charitable donation, is manipulation. And that's the worst part, to me. It's worse than her spending the money in the first place. It's that she's not being honest about the whole thing.
Lyndon B. Johnson was known as being pretty straight-forward, and at one point, this aide was trying to make something sound better than it was. But he wasn't having any of it. "Listen," he told him. "I know the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad."
Well, me too.
I would have rather heard that the money spent on her designer suits wasn't coming from taxpayers; it came from the Republican National Committee and they can decide how to spend campaign money, whether it be on a big stage or on a $3000 jacket. In a way, that would have made more sense: both committees, Democratic and Republican, probably spend thousands of dollars on event details that, if revealed, wouldn't look like they were spending money wisely. But, the truth is, image is a huge part of the campaign, and if Sarah Palin needed a wardrobe overhaul, then she needed a wardrobe overhaul. Just say that, and explain that the Republicans believed that was a good way to spend their money. Whether it's donated to charity or not, that's what the $150,000 was used for. When people gave money to the Republicans, that's what it went towards, bottom line, whether the clothes get donated or not. Maybe those people can feel good that their donation was a charity donation in the end. I don't know.
What I do know is that it's outrageous to make a claim that donating $150,000 worth of designer clothes is a valid justification for spending the money on them, and that should be the end of it. In my opinion, that's a ridiculous idea. What homeless person needs a designer pantsuit? Can you really see a basketful of Escada jackets being a meaningful donation at a shelter? People always think that if they say they're donating to charity, all is going to be okay. It doesn't matter what is being donated; it's the point that something is. That's bullshit. Listen, Sarah Palin, if you're going to donate $150,000 worth of something to charity, how about $150,000 worth of non-perishable food items? Or sneakers? Or socks? Or sweatshirts? Or winter jackets? That's a useful, meaningful donation that would make a difference to people. Giving someone struggling a silk blazer isn't going to keep them warm during the winter.
I get that items donated to charity benefit more people than the truly homeless or the most destitute. And I also understand the value of giving even the poorest people the nicest things. Perhaps giving someone a Prada jacket will really be a nice gesture. I don't say no, but that isn't what's happening here. It's not like they bought her a couple suits and she's saying she doesn't really need them, so she'll donate them to charity. This all came out of a huge uproar that they spent that much money on her and her royal family (that Piper chick's been looking pretty stylish if you ask me. She's not sporting any Osh Kosh B'Gosh). Just because they're donating it doesn't mean it isn't an absurd amount of money. And just because they're donating it doesn't make it a really great or valuable thing.
This whole campaign, Sarah Palin's been out there saying she's not like all the other politicians. She's just like us! ... Except she gets to parade around in designer clothes and take her family on state-sponsored vacations that are paid for by her taxpayers (who are busy enough with their Gordon's Fisherman trade missions with Russia).
Obviously, everyone's been making fun of her for her botched interviews, and rightfully so, but in the last few weeks, it seems like her entire public and political persona has become even more of a trainwreck (if that's even possible). It seemed like her supporters could defend her stupidity as the media being too tough on her (though asking what newspapers you read... maybe mocking,but certainly not tough; and if you're really a pitbull, and you really did read the newspaper, wouldn't you fire right back at Katie Couric? I would have. I would have told her that question insulted me and I would have gone on to tell her exactly which newspapers I read. Of course, telling Katie Couric that she reads the Two Mills Gazette and The Enquirer... probably not the best choice, either.).
Anyway, in recent weeks though, they found that she acted inappropriately with that whole thing with her brother-in-law's job, and then it was found that she had doctored up some old expense reports so that it seemed like her kids absolutely needed to be included in her five-star state travel plans and event appearances, and then people saw that had this major wardrobe overhaul, and suddenly it seems like she's just as shady as every other politician. The main problem with this, of course, is that her whole stance the entire campaign is that her inexperience on the national level is a good thing because it means that she's not corrupted and while experience can be gained, character is inherent. Tough to defend at this hour.
You know, early on, when the news of Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, being pregnant broke, there was another story circulating about how Palin's youngest son isn't really her kid. It's her grandkid - Bristol's first child - but Palin covered up the whole thing and pretended it was hers. I, like most people, dismissed this as a ridiculous tabloid story. They had a few things that made the story somewhat troubling - Bristol had taken off the entire spring semester from her school because of a mysterious illness, Palin didn't look or seem pregnant until she was seven months and then she abruptly announced it to her staff, and when she went into labor she flew and then drove like 14 hours back to some podunk hospital instead of going to a nearby one - but I still dismissed all of this. Sure, she was pretty dimwitted, and she was totally unprepared for this campaign, but that didn't make her a liar.
But that's the thing. With all the bad stuff that's come out about her, you can no longer dismiss everything. She's been shown to be a liar, and she's a manipulator. As my dad would say, she's bad news. And maybe the wardrobe will be donated and do some good for some people, but that doesn't change the fact that she has manipulated her way out of this. She got the clothes because she needed to project a certain image. Be upfront and honest about it. Say that it was a lot of money. Say that it takes a lot of money to present the image she wanted to. Say that she'll donate it to charity in the end. But just saying the last part, and implying that people questioning the expenditure are wrong because of the ultimate charitable donation, is manipulation. And that's the worst part, to me. It's worse than her spending the money in the first place. It's that she's not being honest about the whole thing.
Lyndon B. Johnson was known as being pretty straight-forward, and at one point, this aide was trying to make something sound better than it was. But he wasn't having any of it. "Listen," he told him. "I know the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad."
Well, me too.
<< Home