I go to my Yahoo and what do I see, but Cindy McCain staring back at me...in a complete wardrobe worth an estimated $300K+? Why? If McCain/Palin want to convince me they are going to cut back on expenses, balance a budget, cut taxes, etc., etc., then they need to convince me on their own home front. Show me a real role model. I even have beefs with my own party when it comes to spending, but not nearly as bad as this! It is outrageous that she wore an outfit totaling more than most people's income and this was just one wardrobe pick. I understand some jewelry was figured into the price, but the designer outfit and jewelry for Laura Bush was around $4400 which is a more modest price. I know that people in politics have an image to uphold, but I would feel better about a person who just knows how to dress well without spending an arm and a leg to get the same designer looks. I see it done on Style TV's various shows all the time. I am sure some of it is posturing and some of it is just plain politics, but either way it is still too much. I know some of you will challenge me on this and that it is okay. If Obama's wife wore as expensive of an outfit as McCain's wife did, I did not hear any hoopla about it.
Posts
Compliance is Not Consent
5 years ago
36 comments:
As Yogi would say, it's deja vu all over again.
What the McCain's do with their own personal money is nobody's business.
Back in the times of St. Ronald, one of the sideshow issues was Nancy's designer dresses. Some of the dresses were hers, but many times they were loaners. The designers received some publicity by having the first lady wear one of their dresses.
This reached really absurd proportions when a reporter spotted Nancy buying a few pairs of jeans at Sears. The chattering class was outraged, it was such a shame for the first lady to be seen at, of all places Sears... shouldn't she be shopping at Sak's or Macy's?
My God, I remembered thinking. What is the woman supposed to wear?
I agree, but these people, much like celebrities, are in the public eye constantly. That means their personal lives and choices are up for scrutiny. Palin, for example, is now seeing people criticize her because of her daughters bad choices. Redwing is right in saying that her daughters actions reflect badly on the parents. She boasted of having and teaching family values and up comes a surprise--her teenage daughter is pregnant. While children do have minds of their own, it still should have never been an issue had the mother not instilled those proper "family values" in her at a young age and kept up with what her daughter was doing, boyfriends and all. Now, I know it seems I am getting off point, but my point is that because Palin boasted the family values card, it opened her life up to public scrutiny and that would mean looking at everything including how they spend their money. Yes, the chattering class did have a cow when Nancy bought something at Sears and that is a typical upper class tradgedy. I believe average people thought it was great seeing Nancy buy in "their" kind of store. She made us average Joe's and Jane's feel comfortable with her and like her because she shopped where we shopped. As I look at McCain and see her flaunting their obvious wealth, I would feel better if she donated the entire wardrobe, jewelry and all(except wedding rings, of course) to a charity and let the charity auction it off. $300K+ would sure go a long way for the Loaves and Fishes charity.
I agree with you Sue. Touting her "family values" makes her own family fair game. But where she really needs to be challenged is on her "blue collar" cred. Her husband may be in the USW, but have any labor leaders endorsed her?
There also seems to be a double standard. Remember John Edwards' $400 haircut? What a distraction. Ever since the Nixon-Kennedy debate, politicians have paid for beauticians.
There was no comparision between the cost of Edwards' haircut and what other pols spend on hairdressers.
Edwards didn't exactly walk into a barbers shop for a haircut. His staff scheduled the barber to come to his hotel and cut his hair.
The barber lost at least a half days work. I pay about $25 for a simple haircut, but my wife and teenage son may spend up to $75 at the hairdresser. So, the barber's time may well be worth $400 for a home visit.
As for me, I'm tired of hearing about Hillary's pantsuits, Michelle's cocktail dresses, and John McCain's cardigans. Its a political campaign, not a fashion show.
No you guys are rediculous. She didn't spend the taxpayers money to get the outfit so why do you care? What you don't realize is that $200,000 of that was jewelry. Whaaa. If you had the money she had, even if inherited and wanted to buy a $200,000 piece of jewelry then you would.
And Redwing was wrong on parents being to blame. If her child was 14 then yes, but at 17, almost an adult, she will do what she wants to do no matter what the parents teach.
We already know redwing doesn't have kids yet, how about you Sue? Do you?
Normally, i'd agree with anonymous that kids are off limits, but when a politician gets on the "family values" bandwagon, then their hypocrisy is fair game.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx
Grey, where is the hypocrosy? Palin believes in family values, and? She believes and teaches to her kids family values and her kid didn't listen. So now she is a hypocrite? Please share what you know.
Now if she came out and said prior to this that parents are to blame for their kids actions or that any underage unmarried pregnate female is going to hell, then please post it here so I can agree with you. I would really like to know her response on this Bridge to Nowhere lie she told and why the hell she even mentioned it knowing it was a lie.
Larry:
As Suebee posted, Palin is the one who played the "family values" card.
The hypocrisy I am referring to the one that is rampant among the Republican party. They are nothing more than the modern day coalition of the Pharisees and the Herodians.
Oh I see, so you really don't mean Palin specifically is a hypocrite, but in general the republicans are since they are against these kinds of behaviors (ie homosexuality), and vote against such things, yet they are doing opposite of what they preach. This I understand and agree with.
However to point the finger at Palin herself and call her a hypocrite because her daughter got pregnant is just rediculous, unless you have proof like I mentioned earlier.
You guys need to realize that I'm blaming Palin for teaching "Abstinence only" in her household without teaching proper use of condoms and other birth control. I believe this would have led to her daughter not having a child. Had she not used the ignorant policy of "Abstinence ONLY" (I stress ONLY because I also believe Abstinence should be a part of ALL sexual education) then perhaps her daughter would not be a walking hypocrisy statement on Abstinence ONLY upbringings.
As for the $300,000 outfit... I think Cindy McCain should have been smarter with her choice. I Think if you want to portray a sense that you can FIX THE ECONOMY and "Know the people are hurting" then you should not wear such obvious hypocrisy to that statement. I think this is a "Let them eat cake." moment that makes me cringe to think they might win this election.
To Anonymous: Let's knock off the $200,000 in jewelry. I'm fine calling it a $100,000 outfit instead of $300,000. My point stays the same. Michelle Obama's outfit was $700. A much more modest figure and shows that she can look nice without spending $100k.
Hmm, looks like Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere BEFORE becoming the governor.. BEFORE knowing anything about it or like an ordinary citizen. Sort of like some Democrats I know who now are ok for "Drill Baby Drill". Alaska has a $5 BILLION dollar budget surplus despite increased spending. Looking pretty good to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/palin.budget/index.html
well this in a nutshell has squashed a lot of the rumors
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Again, it's HER money (money her very successful entreprenurial father left to her)and I don't care if she buys $300K outfits for her dogs. Her money, her choice (novel idea for the "progressives" for sure). The point is- she can afford those things BECAUSE HER FINANCIAL HOUSE IS ALREADY IN ORDER. Most politicians are financially successful and I don't care what ANY of them spend their money on. I only care which one wants to take more money from ME. As far as being a bad choice when "people are hurting"- that is just code for "people suffering the consequences of their OWN decisions." I think America is starting to wake up (thankfully)- the polls certainly point in that direction. 60% of those polled said that "big gov't is NOT the answer"- a move in the right direction (pun intended).
As for Palin- she was an OUTSTANDING choice and it's been fun watching the Dems explode and implode. Progressives? America now knows NOT. My only issue as a Libertarian- I don't think gov't should be in the reproductive business, but I have to give her props- she walks the walk and chose to bring her Down's baby to term. AND to come out on the national stage and introduce her "scandalously" unwed pregnant daughter- proudly- to the world- well, we should all be so lucky to have a mother like that. I also bet neither the young mother or the baby will be on public assistance, so that alone makes it no one's business.
P.S. I didn't get a chance to respond to previous postings but just to be clear- YES, I can possibly think I "deserve" to make more selling insurance than a schoolteacher. I re-use the word "deserve" because the left seems to be stuck on that- who "deserves" what and how they should go about re-distributing the wealth. The market will decide how much I "deserve" to make. If I invent a widget that everyone in America has to own and I make billions, I "deserve" it. That being said, I absolutely agree that GOOD teachers should be very well paid and the ONLY way to do that is competition (see, markets again) i.e. vouchers and a move away from unions.
**The goal should be that everyone has the SAME opportunities, not that we GUARANTEE the SAME outcomes.
McCain/Palin '08!!!
-- As far as being a bad choice when "people are hurting"- that is just code for "people suffering the consequences of their OWN decisions."
I will take that to mean that McCain/Palin think that all the people suffering out there are suffering because of their own bad decisions. Exactly what I wanted to hear and I shall use it in the weeks to come. Great point Monica! Thanks for showing how little you care about those around you! Next time I see a poor blind person or a mother of 3 who's father left them I will just tell them the republicans blame their decision making! I'm just SOOO sure they will feel better about themselves when I do!
As for Palin...stop talking about it in THIS post that clearly is about Cindy McCain and her inability to understand the middle/lower class needs, not about Palin. There is another post about her (and another one coming)...post the comments about her there.
My comment about Palin goes for EVERYONE. This is clearly not a blog entry about Sarah Palin so let's stay on topic.
Cindy McCain doesn't have to understand middle/ lower class needs. She is not running for gov't office. Regardless, it's not the gov'ts job to solve YOURS OR ANYONES problems. If you need to elect a gov't to do that, that says a lot about you. And I LOVE that I expect EVERYONE to have a certain sense of responsibility for themselves and in doing so, I'm "mean"- wah wah wah. I will put my "record" of helping the underprivileged and poor up against YOURS any day! The difference b/t us is that I put MY money where my mouth is and YOU just want to elect a gov't to take it from those that have MORE than YOU and give it to the "poor and underprivileged" to ease YOUR conscience. What a joke! But maybe you'll blog about how being a Socialist is "progressive"
and we can talk about it then. My apologies, I didn't understand "blogging rules".
good for you Monica. Redwing started one of his posts with
"RedWing-SM- said...
You guys need to realize that I'm blaming Palin for teaching "Abstinence only" in her household without teaching proper use of condoms and other birth control...."
which I agree Sue actually brought up Palin first, but in the thread SHE CREATED... so to me nothing is off limits.
Nobody said you were "mean" but I'm glad you then showed exactly how "mean" you were. Typical republican making personal attacks about what I give to the poor instead of attacking the issue. I don't make as much as you so in likelyhood don't give as much. Last time I checked this wasn't a debate about who gives the most. But I expect this from someone who listens to conservative radio and fox news all day so i'm not surprised at all. This blog isn't meant for arguing your silly "what i did vs what you did" points. Stick to the issue and leave the personal attacks on my charity out of it.
Back to the subject at hand: A $300k outfit shows how out of touch she is...and while she's not running for office she is representing her husband's statements about understanding "we know you are suffering" but then not bringing to light any legistlation that may help that blind man get some help or the mother of 3 who's husband died and left her with a ton of credit card debt a fresh start. Of course, according to you, that won't ever happen, as everyone is on their own in all cases no matter what.
But by all means, continue the personal attacks on my charity and show off your maturity on being able to have a civil debate about the topic at hand. You only further prove my point that your corner of the room is not where I want to be. Just don't pretend you know ANYTHING about MY conscience.
In closing, you can keep up your "socialist" attacks all you want...but never pretend that I advocate socialism. I advocate a hybrid of Capitalism/Socialism and yes...I would prefer it lean towards the socialistic side which is my right, thanks to the brave men who revolted against the British and created our Constitution that gives me the right to believe whatever the hell I want to believe.
Now it's time to take a break from politics and make the drive to Tennessee. Maybe when I get back I won't have to defend what I give to charity by providing United Way/Salvation Army & Second Harvest Food Bank statements or provide my wife's Women for Women international & Habitat for Humanity statements. Or maybe I should just include the joint charities we give to that include the Art's Council of W-S, Heart Foundation, JDRF & Make-a-Wish Foundation, Susan Komen for the Cure and I'm sure others that I can't think of at this time. I guess perhaps I should provide the time sheets for the time my wife and I spend
Ohhhh wait... I'm not on trial here...
Larry I could care less if SueBee posted it... I'm tired of being off topic and want to stick to what this post was about. If I had the ability to MOVE comments I would have done so. I don't so my statement is still valid, despite my injection into the conversation. It goes for me as well.
Last time I checked, this was my blog and since I'm not going to delete comments I just ask that we stick to the topic at hand. I made a nice new post that included Sarah Palin for people that want to discuss her.
Thanks, Larry.
First of all, this is not a debate. If you want to debate the issues- why over-taxing the rich creates a recession, why gov't doesn't create prosperity, why fighting the war in Iraq protects all of us in the US, bring it on. Your post is about Cindy McCain's outfit. Secondly, you missed the point RedWing- it is personal when the gov't wants to steal from me and give to others. You advocate that. My position AND POINT is that if you wish more money to go to the "poor and underprivileged" then DO IT YOURSELF. That is an easy concept to understand and I'm not attacking you.
Yes, you are correct- due to the great heroism of people like John McCain, you're able to be a socialist (your own admission) in a country that has ABHORRED and fought against socialism and communism since it's inception.
Oh, and about your vacation- I really don't think it's "fair" that you get to take a vacation when SO many people do not. I think you should at least take a few of those unfortunates on your vacation with you- that would only be right by your standards. Yeah, probably not gonna happen.
I think it is great that Redwing has decided to be the standard bearer for abandoned single mothers and the unsighted poor. However I think that he misses the point. It is not the role of government to decide how individuals spend their money. It should not be the role of government to seize the property of some for redistribution to others.
While you ponder the number of hungry children that could be fed by proceeds from the sale of Cindy McCain’s outfit; imagine how many more could have been fed for the cost of the Barack Obama acceptance speech extravaganza at Invesco Field.
I don’t think you want to play the “who has done more to help starving children” game because Cindy McCain wins hands down. “She has waded through minefields in Cambodia. She slept out in the bush in tents in Angola. She has comforted children under the broiling sun in Morocco”. Her charitable accomplishments are lauded by many on the left and the right. She is not one to talk about what can be done for the disadvantaged. She actually does something to help the disadvantaged. Consider her adopted daughter Bridget. She and John McCain rescued her from one of Mother Teresa’s orphanages, brought her to the US for surgery to correct a cleft pallet, and made her part of their family.
Imagine, she did all of these things without government using its police powers to force her to do so. I am sure that Michelle Obama is entirely well intentioned but she cannot hold a candle to Cindy McCain’s charitable history.
Don’t believe me? The Chicago Tribune addresses the issue. In 2002, the year before launching the senate campaign, the Obama’s reported income of $259,394 and claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity (0.4% of income). In 2005 those numbers were $1.65 million in income and $77,300 (4.6% of income). In 2006 those numbers were $983,626 million in income and $60,307 (6.1% of income. Now contrast that to the McCains. According to IRS filings, since 1998 John McCain has contributed over $1.8 million dollars (revenues from the sale of his books) to charities. Additionally in 2007, with a reported income of $405,409, John McCain contributed $105,467 to charity (26% of income). While Cindy McCain’s income is not available, the campaign reports that she made the same charitable contribution in 2007 for a total of $210,934 between them.
So if she wants to wear a $300K outfit who is harmed? Maybe the Federal Election Commission should give Michelle Obama vouchers to Prada and Harry Winston so that she can close the fashion gap.
whoever you are anonymous please stick around!!!
And redwing since this blog is your own "government control" I guess I will abide by your rules. Thanks for being nice about it.
by the way Mr. President redwing, can you create a thread on biden's mouth so I can post this to it?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/biden-hillary-might-have-been-better-vp-pick/?iref=werecommend
Okay--you want me to be a smartass so here goes--Anonymous, thanks for being an insensitive jackass and a jerk. I am not able to have kids and I resent the attack. I was only talking about Cindy McCain's outfit and then I made a point about opening yourself up to scrutiny when you are a public figure. Monica, yes it does matter what they where. It may not be our tax money, but it shows me that they think wasting money on couture or very expensive designer outfits is just that---a waste. I would feel better about a candidate who donates money to local or national charities right here in the good ol' USofA. I do not know what planet you are on, but we have plenty of starving kids right here in our neck of the world too as well as kids living in poverty. Try telling them how impressed you are with that $100 purchase Monica, Anonymous, and Larry. You should be ashamed of yourselves for even gloating about how proud you are of Cindy for her clearly poor choice of strutting an outfit that cost that much. It seems to me it still shows the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans seem to be the ones who support the almighty rich and don't give a damn and the Democrats support the underdog and REAL people!
I meant wear not where--sorry a typo--I am human and make mistakes.
Sue, why are you including me over Cindy's outfit. I never said a word in that regard. I only mentioned Palin, thus causing redwing to reprimand me.
And, what do you have to say about the last Anonymous post? He or she completely squashed your point. I understand why you can't defend yourself there. You should be ashamed worrying over her outfit instead of the real issues. Stop being trivial. Do you really think her wearing that outfit would prevent people from voting for them? Maybe if you stopped wallering in the dirt with the rest of the media the Democrats can get their lead back.
Sue,
Did you read my post? At what point did I refer to anyone's ability to have children? Talk about staying on topic. Regardless, if Obama is elected this issue of fashion becomes moot anyway. I hope that you enjoy your Mao Suit as much as I will enjoy mine. You can have it in any color you want as long as it is gray.
Sorry Larry, between all of the back and forth, you got thrown into the mix. As for you Anonymous, you asked if I had Kids in an obvious sarcastic manner. It seems we are all getting off point and getting too personal and childish in our attacks so lets call a truce and stay on topic from here on out and try to leave personal attacks in our minds especially considering we do not know each other from Adam. Anyway, let us stay to the issues at hand. I agree I may have been pushing the envelope when I picked the topic, but you did respond and that really was the whole point--to get us all talking and seeing different people's views about candidate's and their families. You know, you all could have just as easily written about Obama and his wifes' clothes in response to my getting after Cindy McCain's expensive purchase, but you didn't. Do we have any takers? Anyone want to counter my McCain outfit topic with an Obama outfit topic? Let us just stay to the point and have fun bringing it on!
Sue
I think there is some confusion. I am not the same Anonymous from the older posting that asked if you had children .
Sorry, but it is difficult to tell who is who if you just call yourself Anonymous. Perhaps a catchy name to distinguish yourself might help, otherwise you may still get a comment that is not meant for you. Again, sorry for the confusion.
Wow been away and what do I come back to...but a debate that has far outreached it's origins.
Those of you who think us liberals are "worrying" over Cindy's outfit are not even getting close to seeing the point. It was just a post by SueBee that is clearly showing her disgust about it. Guess what? We all have the right to be disgusted by whatever we want.
I'm disgusted that the Republicans seem to think they OWN the word "lipstick"...and are unjustly attackign Obama when McCain himself has used that very same phrase, "Lipstick on a pig." Just because somethign DISGUSTS me doesn't mean that it changes the debate on policy one single bit. It's like none of you have ever blogged before. This was simply a random thought from SueBee on why SHE feels that the McCains don't know or don't care that real people are hurting.
As for Monica...your anger on this subject is very typical of what I have experienced with people on the rightwing side of the country. Anger that people believe differently than they do. Anger that us liberals think the way to better our country is to help those less fortunate...not throw money at the rich and HOPE it trickles down to the poor. Just because I, and people like SueBee, Redwing & Grey Fedora believe that the way to a happier, healthier, richer country is through helping the middle/lower class, doesn't mean there is any reason to attack someone's charitable givings or the fact that they are disgusted about someone wearing an outfit totalling $300,000 (or $100,000 without the jewelry).
Who cares? It's a damn blog post... SueBee wasn't posting it so that she can say that Cindy defines or MAY define policy going forward...but to show how disgusted she is with the fact that she even THINKS it was a good idea to wear that. She was stupid for even wearing that... whoever her dresser is needs a little compassion. Her money? Sure... but should she be showing it off in the middle of a campaign where 95% of the voters make less than her entire outfit in a whole year? I don't think so.
Anonymous (the last one), again the point is not to debate who gives who what... as Redwing said... that is SILLY. GOD IS IT SILLY. It's about JUDGMENT. Sorry to quote you there RedWing but you're right. The McCain campaign continues to show POOR JUDGEMENT. This outfit is just an addition to the list.
On the plus side...I haven't seen Republicans this fired up and angry in a long time... I think this means they are actually scared that a black man with a muslim name may make it into the office. I had a guy tell me the other day that if he was elected then a nuclear war would happen in his first term. HAH! Scared... that's all it is...just plain scared.
Keep up the good work RedWing!
Thank you, thank you, thank you Freedom of Speech, for seeing my point that apparently got lost in all the ridiculous hoopla!!
I don't have long as we only bought 30 minutes of internet time and my wife needs it too.
After reading Larry & freedomofspeech's comments I am giving in to "stick to the topic" rule. Post whatever you want, whenever you want. My apologies for seeming like an ass about it. I am sure, however, that the right wing lunatics are tired of hearing about Sarah Palin too. Be that as it may, I apologize and please continue posting on any topic, anytime.
I see monica continues to attack in code with her "I really don't think it's "fair" that you get to take a vacation when SO many people do not. I think you should at least take a few of those unfortunates on your vacation with you- that would only be right by your standards." comment. Again making assumptions about my personal life without being a part of it. Thanks again for proving my point.
Anonymous, I don't really need to respond to you as freedomofspeech pretty much took care of that for me. I could care less about personal charitable contributions and how much someone gives and when. I just want everyone to give as much as they can, and we'll leave it at that. However, I do believe in policy that can help families with financial problems...EVEN IF THEIR CHOICE CAUSED IT. Republicans/Conservatives tend to lack compassion and that's the bottom line. This can be seen in the president's response to Katrina, the republicans making fun of Michael J. Fox that Rush Limbaugh who makes comments like, "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
When I have more time I could write quite a long blog post on the Republican's lack of compassion for the common folk.
Have to go! Thanks to everyone for posting! We've hit 53,000 hits on our blog now!
The way I see it Barack has given his LIFE to the middle class & the poor. Something Cindy McCain would never do. Obama could be making MILLIONS upon MILLIONS as a lawyer but he chose to serve the people, instead. That's change I can believe in. Okay that was cheesy but i'm in a hurry.
As to Obama's ability to make millions upon millions as an attorney- have you seen him in the most recent Saddleback and 9/11 Presidential Forums? Without a telepromter I don't think he could litigate himself out of a wet paper bag. I have to admit like many I was very nervous about Palin's performance in the Gibson interview and felt that in some instances she did not seem "polished". However, all of my fears were diminished after seeing Obama's performance on the 9/11 Presidential Forum- as his performance certainly lowered the bar. I can go ahead and anticipate that all of you who drink the left-wing koolaid will think that his performance was exceptional. I think time will tell that the average American will not see it that way. We are witnessing the star extinguished. Totally to be expected from a man with NO significant political contribution or achievements running for President. The polls say it all!!
I am pissed! For the first time in my history of voting, I am not voting for a President. None of the candidates comes close to making me feel comfortable as being our Head of State. Hilary was the only one who had experience in Washington and should have been the other choice. I am pissed! McCain/Palin are a JOKE! Obama/Biden? I do not really feel a connection. Hilary? I know all of her baggage and I know that the Clinton years were the best years of my life! Despite all of the hoopla her hubby caused during those years, you cannot deny that we all made money and life was GREAT! I still believe Hilary should have been our choice and McCain putting Palin on his ticket hoping to woo us Hilary supporters is a JOKE! He could not even find a qualified Republican woman--what about Condaleeza Rice? McCain is a FOOL! I am not fooled and I will not vote for a Prez this year. Scared? YES! Russia, China, Venezuela,and North Korea are lying in bed together when it comes to their views of us U.S. citizens because of our IDIOT President Bush. He has led this country so far down the path of destruction that we do not even need to worry about terrorist. He has terrorized us to death. He has stuped our economy into the ground, FannieMae and FreddieMac are in deep doodoo, and the middle class has virtually disappeared. Bush is an IDIOT, a BOOB--need I say more. So for all you Republicans out there---get it through your skulls--McCain is a Bush clone in disquise! You are being brain washed! WAKE UP AMERICA!
McCain/Palin sleep with BigOil as do the rest of the republican party--nuff said! If you want to be stupid and vote for McCain/Palin, then do not blame us Progressives when the country drowns in the sewers--GOT IT! DO NOT BLAME PROGRESSIVES FOR REAL CHANGE!!!!!
Post a Comment