Michelle Malkin » Heckuva job, RNC

Heckuva job, RNC

By Michelle Malkin • October 22, 2008 12:44 PM

Ugh.

This is the number one story in the blogosphere right now:

Yes, Joe Biden is imploding, but Sarah Palin’s RNC-funded wardrobe budget is the headline. The libs are claiming that some unnamed Republican National Committee donors and members are “disgusted” by the expenditures.

Are you surprised? The RNC has squandered its time and money on a lot of stupid things.

I’m with Mark Tapscott:

Every time I think the campaign professionals at the Republican National Committee can’t possibly do anything else to sink the party, they do something else that simply defies logical explanation. Like taking a candidate who epitomizes Middle American values and spending $150,000 to dress her up in Saks Fifth Avenue finery.

Apparently, they just couldn’t stand the thought of a GOP candidate for vice president actually wearing the same clothes on the campaign trail that she wears in real life. No, they had to go make her look like … one of them.

Did nobody over there think it through and realize doing this would hand Obama and the Democrats the last perfect piece of evidence of how out of touch Republicans are with the real world?

Heckuva job, RNC.

Here is the real Sarah, pre-RNC makeover:

Fortunately for the party makeover consultants, it doesn’t matter what she’s wearing.

She’s got something special that money can’t buy.

SNL’s Lorne Michael acknowledges it:

“I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she’s powerful. Her politics aren’t my politics. But you can see that she’s a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she’s had a huge impact. People connect to her…

Posted in: Sarah Palin

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (618)

trackbacks (23)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

#601

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm, flenser said:

Good Lord!

I see that chappy is still obsessing/ getting a boner over the notion that he can find some tax issues with the spouse of the GOP’s VP candidate.

And still mulishly refusing to pay the slightest bit of attention the very real problems with the Marxist radical he is supporting.

What a dishonest hack. But than, that s the motto of the left, isn’t it? “By any means neccessary”.
#602

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

Chap, until Obama releases his birth certificate and his university transcripts, I couldn’t care less about what anyone on the opposition does or does not release.
#603

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm, chapoutier said:

I see that chappy is still obsessing/ getting a boner over the notion that he can find some tax issues with the spouse of the GOP’s VP candidate.

Sarah signs that return too. It is just as much her problem as his.

And as for not addressing Obama’s issues, I have often done so. People may not like my conclusions. So be it.
#604

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm, flenser said:

Your ad hominem attacks, flenser

They are not ad hominem attacks. Mistress goodfball is in fact a disgusting bigot.

Chappy is not, he is merely a “by any means neccessary” lefty who is willing to prostitute himself in the service of the cause.

a cogent argument as to why Palin is a good candidate.

Yeah, I should do that, in response to the wonderfully cogent arguments you trolls are making as to why your community activist is a good candidate.

In case you missed the sarcasm, and God knows you people are stupid enough to do it, you have made no such arguments. So spare me your “so as we say, not as we do” routine.

Or do you really suppose that your “Palin is a hypocrite” hissy-fit represents cogent argument?

There is a colossal gap between you peoples actual intelligence and what you imagine it to be. It’s what allows you to show up here and put on these displays of reasoning that would embarass a stoned twelve-year-old while at the same time flaunting these smarter-than-thou airs.
#605

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm, corkie said:

On October 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 am, chapoutier said:

I imply that his business deductions on their face are fishy and deserve great scrutiny. The Palins only released 2007 and 2006 so that is all I have to go by.

I am unsure as to why you are still commenting on this since you proved you don’t know what you are talking about. You couldn’t even muster up the right standard for business vs. hobby.

WHAT???? I don’t know what I’m talking about???? I couldn’t muster up some stupid little IRS test???? Hahahahah. Puleeeeez. When you’re done playing games with the IRS website’s public interface and want to discuss case law, then I’m here for ya buddy. The IRS test is a guide for unsophisticated tax preparers. It’s not codified. It’s easy to tailor expenses to show profitability during certain years. That’s why revenue basically becomes the defacto standard.

Look, you admit that you know nothing about his previous tax years. Therefore, you can’t make any determination about how the IRS, nonetheless justice, nonetheless a court, would treat it. All your implications are disingenuous and now you know it.
#606

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm, corkie said:

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm, flenser said:

I see that chappy is still obsessing/ getting a boner over the notion that he can find some tax issues with the spouse of the GOP’s VP candidate.

I think he now realizes that he hasn’t found anything.
#607

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm, mistressjustice said:

MJ said:

If you were honest, you’d admit that if the MO had the same secessionist ties you’d be disgusted.
You never addressed this, and I most certainly stand by this statement. Take all of her ambiguously “unpatriotic” statements off the table,but if MO had the same secessionist past as Todd Palin, I think you and other rightwingers would be disgusted by her. This is politics and I think you’re playing “teams” and believe in double standards. That’s all.

Navywife said:

BTW, mistress, I didn’t answer your question about MO because I don’t agree with the premise that Todd Palin is this crazy secessionist. I ask that proof be provided before I address it. I have seen none.

Nice spin Navywife. I never called TP a crazy secessionist in my post directed to you. I called him a secessionist in posts addressed to other people because I think it’s like saying “I joined the Klan, but I have no problem with minorities, unlike some other members, or the freaking founder”. “I’m just unhappy with the government.” No I’m not comparing AIP to the Klan, but you get the analogy. Look again. I know you want clarity, and I’m telling you that if MO(or Mrs. Biden for that matter) had the same secessionist ties, or contacts as TP, you and every other rightwinger would be raising hell about it, and questioning BO’s judgement in marriage. Is it possible that TP could be a member of a group whose founder was an anti-American secessionist, and had active secessionist members, but rejected that particular philosophy? Sure, I guess so. I do know that if MO had the exact same “relationships”, your ilk would be disgusted, or at least put on a show of disgust. I’m no psychic, and I could be wrong, but based on my experiences with the rigthwing, I doubt it. I’m not saying it’s wicked, or evil, or even bad, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s all about the team, I guess.

I find it curious that you make a point to say “crazy secessionist” when you appear to defend them here:

Michelle thinks this is a downright mean country, which she has only become proud of recently. I think that is definitely worse(emphasis added) than belonging to a secessionist group.

That statement still blows me away, but whatever. It’s your opinion, I guess.

As usual you trolls twist the words! Please show me where I said it was “cool”? Can’t find it? Hmmm! Still can’t find it? Look, creep, don’t put words in my box and attempt to “guess” what I’m thinking. Have you ever actually read any material or visited the website of this group? Because I wanted to get facts, I actually did. They are pretty ticked off about the Federal govt butting into their business, but last time I checked, they didn’t advocate any bombings or say they hate America. They disagree with the government. THere is a difference, but I know you just can’t see past your need for Obama to be President.

I doubt you’d be this diplomatic if we were talking about a Biden, or an Obama, particularly MO. Take the last words if you want. I have nothing new to add on this thread.

Good afternoon
#608

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm, flenser said:

Sarah signs that return too. It is just as much her problem as his.

The only person who thinks that she has a “problem” is an anonymous left wing troll on a blog, one who has made it abundantly clear that that he has all the intellectual honesty of a used car salesman. Or a laywer.

So I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that she is not losing much sleep over this.

And as for not addressing Obama’s issues, I have often done so.

Really? I suppose that’s why you did not do so on this thread. You were tired of responding. If you’d care to link to the thread where you DID respond?

Otherwise I’ll have to keep asking you.
#609

On October 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm, flenser said:

Take the last words if you want. I have nothing new to add on this thread.

That was the case several hundred comments ago. If only you had realised it back then.

I’m telling you that if MO(or Mrs. Biden for that matter) had the same secessionist ties, or contacts as TP, you and every other rightwinger would be raising hell about it, and questioning BO’s judgement in marriage.

We don’t NEED to question MO’s ties, because Obama HIMSELF has much clearer and longer lasting ties to people far worse than the AIP.

It’s amazing that you people can get worked up (all right, I know you’re only pretending) about Todd’s connections to the AIP, while at the same time refusing to give rats pattotie about Barack Obama’s much more significant ties to people like Wright and Ayers and Dohrn. People who make the AIP look like the Girl Scouts.

And by “amazing” I don’t mean I’m surprised, because I know the level of dishonesty you are capable off. I mean amazing in the sense that I cannot understand how you can degrade yourself like this in the pursuit of power. Have you no sense of shame? Is there no level of cyncism or dishonesty to which you will not sink? Is there no price in terms of your personal integrity too high to pay?
#610

On October 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm, flenser said:

I just think it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s all about the team, I guess.

Stop projecting your own faults onto the rest of the world. We are far harsher critics of people on our “team” than you are of people on yours.

If McCain had the associations which Obama does he’d never have gotten within a light year of the GOP nomination. He’d never have become a Senator. We police our side very well. How come you don’t do the same in your party?
#611

On October 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm, chapoutier said:

Really? I suppose that’s why you did not do so on this thread. You were tired of responding. If you’d care to link to the thread where you DID respond?

Otherwise I’ll have to keep asking you.

I will answer what I want when I want and if you care to seek out other threads with me commenting you are welcome to do so on your own time. it is not my job to catch you up on my 15 months or so worth of posting here.

And corkie, if you knew the standard why did you fail to even begin to state it correctly? You failed to even demonstrate you know the difference between revenue and profit. I am sure you are all super fancy with your tax returns and that is cool, but it is also people like you that are the reason our codes and regs and rulings and case law extend page after page after page. You try to get too cute by half, so the Treasury or the Service has to come in and make new, more specific regs to try to beat down the people who are gaming the system.

It’s easy to tailor expenses to show profitability during certain years. That’s why revenue basically becomes the defacto standard.

I notice when you say this it says nothing to the fact of whether or not you actually are in a business or whether you are engaging in a hobby. It is all about manipulating the standards, isn’t it?
#612

On October 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm, corkie said:

On October 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm, chapoutier said:

it is also people like you that are the reason our codes and regs and rulings and case law extend page after page after page. You try to get too cute by half, so the Treasury or the Service has to come in and make new, more specific regs to try to beat down the people who are gaming the system.

You might be surprised to learn that I partially agree with you on this.

One problem in this country is that we now have so many laws that people tend to think legal=ethical. I personally know plenty of wall street examples which painfully exemplify this.

To some extent over-regulating certain activities can cause this (I’m NOT making a case for deregulation here).

The tax code is a great example. It’s a disgrace. It is by far the worst regulating instrument in this country. And it is so detailed, so controlling, that it’s silly to think that something which doesn’t violate the code shouldn’t be considered unethical.

I notice when you say this it says nothing to the fact of whether or not you actually are in a business or whether you are engaging in a hobby.

Plainly speaking, what’s the difference? Obviously not enjoyment level. I LOVE my business more than most people like their hobbies. On the other hand, some people probably run their hobbies more business-like than a many business owners. You tell me, plainly speaking.

It is all about manipulating the standards, isn’t it?

I appreciate this comment - seriously, and I’ll admit partial guilt here. I don’t engage in neutralizing techniques, but I’ve sat and thought long and hard about many, many tax issues - and if the tax code wasn’t such a disaster it would be much easier to draw lines.
#613

On October 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm, happy2behere said:

Again, there are people on this thread that talk tax like they are professionals. They do not give their credentials and we would have no way of checking if they did. Even if they uses references like the book Fleeced by Dick Morris, page 23(Obama’s prejected tax increases) check it out, I did. Do not take what anybody says here as accurate and by all means run all information you have received in any conversation by your own tax professional.
#614

On October 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm, chapoutier said:

Do not take what anybody says here as accurate and by all means run all information you have received in any conversation by your own tax professional.

Spoken like a true lawyer (Not sure if you are one, just sayin…)
#615

On October 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm, azvoter said:

Great pictures. I would like to know how much others spend on their work clothing. She had no time to prepare and her Alaska wardrobe was probably quite warm to wear on the campaign trail. I love Sarah Palin!!!!!
#616

On October 23rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm, watershed said:

And it gets EVEN BETTER!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/wardrobe-mysteries-linger/

Gist: many of the stores where robo-caller Jeff Larson supposedly bought clothing for Sarah Palin have NO RECIEPTS for the purchases and do not recall any purchases of that nature.

So here’s the apparent incredible storyline-

1) $150,000 for a month’s worth of clothing for Sarah Palin? Wha…?

2) Wait. NOT $150,000 and maybe Jeff Larson, scumbag robo-caller is doing some under the table accounting? And for WHAT exactly?

We are through the looking glass here, people. Truly awesome.

I wanna to at least thank you guys for the most entertaining campaign in my lifetime. What a dog and pony show.
#617

On October 24th, 2008 at 2:08 am, love2rumba said:

Ok let’s put our clothes on and go on to another subject, please.
#618

On October 24th, 2008 at 9:30 am, Digshot said:

Nice spin Navywife. I never called TP a crazy secessionist in my post directed to you. I called him a secessionist in posts addressed to other people because I think it’s like saying “I joined the Klan, but I have no problem with minorities, unlike some other members, or the freaking founder”. “I’m just unhappy with the government.” No I’m not comparing AIP to the Klan, but you get the analogy. Look again. I know you want clarity, and I’m telling you that if MO(or Mrs. Biden for that matter) had the same secessionist ties, or contacts as TP, you and every other rightwinger would be raising hell about it, and questioning BO’s judgement in marriage. Is it possible that TP could be a member of a group whose founder was an anti-American secessionist, and had active secessionist members, but rejected that particular philosophy? Sure, I guess so. I do know that if MO had the exact same “relationships”, your ilk would be disgusted, or at least put on a show of disgust. I’m no psychic, and I could be wrong, but based on my experiences with the rigthwing, I doubt it. I’m not saying it’s wicked, or evil, or even bad, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s all about the team, I guess.

That’s not all. Can you imagine if Michelle Obama had been caught red-handed stealing medicine from a children’s charity to get high? Or what if Obama had carried on an affair with Michelle while still married to his injured wife? Or how about if Obama had a teenage daughter that got knocked up out of wedlock?

We would never hear the end.