The Idiocy of the $150,000 Debate

October 22nd, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

OK, it’s time for someone to step up and say it: the blogosphere and mainstream media have made a charicature of themselves. I reported on the news that the Republican National Committee had spent $150,000 on clothes for Sarah Palin, but I only did so because I realized it was a new, fresh attack against the Governor of Alaska, and nothing more.

However, the story was picked up by mainstream media and bloggers, all writing about it as if it was something we should seriously debate. We shouldn’t. It’s a ludicrous subject, and all those pretend that it is serious stop stop being obsessed with what other people do, and should instead get a job, or a college degree, so they will have less time to gossip about what others may or may not do.

Since it has become a debate, I feel forced to explain why we should not even talk about it. I have compiled a comprehensive list of 10 reasons why the issue should not have become an issue:

1. The RNC got that money to campaign. Clothes and haircuts are all part of campaigning. Political candidates have to look good. Should they have spent $150,000 on clothes? I don’t know, I’m not a strategist, and neither are most of those who read this article and comment on it. Should that money have been spent on other things? Perhaps, I don’t know. I’m not a strategist. I do know, however, that the McCain campaign can spent whatever money on clothes it wants to; if it believes clothes to be of incredible importance, it should spend bigtime on it. Lord knows they spent much more on ads, rallies, and other necessities in campaigns.

2. We don’t know what the others spend on clothes. It could very well be that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have spent approximately the same amount of money on clothes in recent months. Why don’t we know? Because the mainstream media do not consider the subject important enough to investigate it. Which it isn’t.

3. You are all insane. It does not matter how much they spend on clothes, and how much money they do not spend on it. It’s irrelevant. Who cares. Their money. People gave money freely to the RNC, that’s it. Then you’ve got utter idiots saying it should ‘illegal’ to spend so much on clothes, thereby once again making clear that they’re not liberals, but authoritarians.

4. It’s a waste of time. Here we are, talking about how much money the RNC spent on clothes for Sarah Palin, and we’re not talking about little things such as, o, say, the upcoming international crisis as promised by Joe Biden.

5. Does Palin or doesn’t Palin look good? Right. Money well spent then.

6. You are all insane. It does not matter how much they spend on clothes, and how much money they do not spend on it. It’s irrelevant. Who cares. Their money. People gave money freely to the RNC, that’s it. Then you’ve got utter idiots saying it should ‘illegal’ to spend so much on clothes, thereby once again making clear that they’re not liberals, but authoritarians.

7. Looking good is of the highest importance for political candidates. Why do you think Obama ‘won’ every debate? Right. Because John McCain looked like a sad, nasty old man. Clothes are part of your image. In politics, image is everything. Good clothes cost money.

8. You are all insane. It does not matter how much they spend on clothes, and how much money they do not spend on it. It’s irrelevant. Who cares. Their money. People gave money freely to the RNC, that’s it. Then you’ve got utter idiots saying it should ‘illegal’ to spend so much on clothes, thereby once again making clear that they’re not liberals, but authoritarians.

9. Do you know how much it costs to use the ‘Chevy Suburbans the campaigns love to use to populate their motorcades’? Right. Three such gigantic cars = $150,000 (approximately). How in the world are these cars more important than the clothes they wear? If you talk about clothes, you suddenly have to talk about all expenses of campaigsn which is utterly, utterly useless.

10. You are all insane. It does not matter how much they spend on clothes, and how much money they do not spend on it. It’s irrelevant. Who cares. Their money. People gave money freely to the RNC, that’s it. Then you’ve got utter idiots saying it should ‘illegal’ to spend so much on clothes, thereby once again making clear that they’re not liberals, but authoritarians.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. tkfarrow
    October 22nd, 2008 at 20:35
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Well said!

  2. Interested
    October 23rd, 2008 at 02:30
    Reply | Quote | #2

    LOL you seem to have struck a nerve with Carey MvDG.

    First off Carey there is no legal through a loophole.  Individuals donated money to the RNC.  If you donate you do not specify how the money is spent.  It’s up to them if they want to spend it all on fluffy pink elephants.

    This is not public financing.

    How does your barometer measure up to Obama spending buckets of private financing for media ad’s that will have zero impact?  You would prefer millions in unnecessary spending vs 150,000 in appearance items?

  3. VlogHog
    October 23rd, 2008 at 05:10
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I was shocked to see that the New York Times, L.A. Times and CBS promote this non-story. All of the candidates in this race, have spent the same amount of money on clothes, lodging, food etc.  Their national public figures not basement dwelling bloggers like some.

    What if Palin or Biden actually shopped at Wal-Mart for clothes?  The media would say that it was publicity stunt and real politians don’t do this.

    How many Brooks Brothers suits does Obama have? If he has 20, that’s about 30,000 dollars.  Jimmy crack corn I DON’T CARE.

  4. Grewgills
    October 23rd, 2008 at 17:07
    Reply | Quote | #4

    “I was shocked to see that the New York Times, L.A. Times and CBS promote this non-story.”
    Were you also shocked when all of them reported on John Edwards $400 haircut?

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.