Exit question: Are they actually going to donate the clothes rather than auction them off and donate the proceeds? That seems … stupid.

I’d be willing to bet that the used panties would fetch a pretty penny on eBay. You could probably finance a whole senate campaign on the revenue from those alone!

Sorry to be the first to say such a thing. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one here thinking it, though.

I’m one step closer to leaving the party.

Please don’t block the stampede. After last November I suspect many of us think the same. Of course, after a few years of Obambam and the Party of Karl Marx in power, we could all be in “re-education” facilities and forbidden to express anything, save worship and devotion to “THE ONE”.

I’ve never seen a charity case that tiny or that fancily dressed. I also haven’t personally seen her size since sixth grade! :)

Auction them off as no poor person is going to go around in them except until they need cleaning and then they can’t afford the cleaning bill. But, hey, The One is taking us all to the cleaners for a field trip. This is just a refresher course for those of us who endured the Carter debacle.

Obam bam is using our tax dollars to pay for abortions and your crying about clothes?
WTF?!

dinkyjackson on January 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Great point. Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and that devil is reversing Bush’s order to restrict using money for abortions on some overseas organizations that get our tax money.

First week of the Hollow Man’s term and already he has my money murdering the unborn.

Change we can believe in.

Why is there not more focus on the incompetence of the current RNC chairman Mike Duncan, who happens to be running for re-election in a week. No to blatant idiocy and no, no, no to Mike Duncan. We conservatives will start to take back the party and America if Steele or Blackwell is elected the new chairman. Duncan must go. Duncan must go. Duncan must go!

technopeasant on January 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Not Steele. Blackwell is the man and won the debate. Anuzis should be Ken’s CTO. Those two would be the first bold great step back for the GOP.

Surely they can’t be so stupid as to just give the clothes away. They can auction them off, buy the exact same frickin clothes to give to charity, then keep the difference to use in the 2010 campaigns.

BuzzCrutcher on January 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM

The Ferenghi in the group. :)

Not to mention Rudy 9/11 Giuliani. Think of the money the RNC could save on wardrobe if they run Giuliani/Palin in 2012!

benny shakar on January 23, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I have to admit, I laughed. The cross-dressing thing never bothered me.

Rudy’d better start toning up those legs pronto!

What female Repub supporter out their wouldn’t want one of her dresses as a memento of the “Cuda?”
DL13 on January 23, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Not to mention Rudy 9/11 Giuliani. Think of the money the RNC could save on wardrobe if they run Giuliani/Palin in 2012!

Of course, then there’s Larry Craig…

They have to have a diversion…

And this story only proves that Palin was telling the truth
when they gave the clothes back.

One possibility: Cut them up into square-foot swatches, frame them individually, and sell them online to the base as relics.

Or they could’ve just dipped them in pig sh*t, loaded ‘em onto Marine One and rained everything down onto the inaugural crowd.

Money well spent.

“Lev, my point is this: I’m pretty sure I can find some Jindal snippets that could make him sound like a simpleton, but why do that?”

What I posted were not just snippets, that was her chance in primetime, the big leagues, not some obscure moment that nobody remembers. And more importantly the Supreme Court question wasn’t so much what people will think about her, but what are her conservative roots, too many charlatans since 1994 saying the same old empty talking points and produced nothing but Dem majorities and larger government, if she doesn’t know why she would be appointing strict constructionist judges then that really draws flags from many conservatives, and the comment at the end of her answer is downright scary, reminds me of Bush’s response to eminent domain.

LevStrauss on January 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Perhaps when Jindal or whoever you admire gets their Couric love-fest we’ll see how they fare. Personally, my candidate doesn’t have to be perfect. I look at their body of work and I learn something about them. I don’t decide on a few moments of video, and Katie doesn’t think for me. As I said, she was playing a role in the campaign and whatever happened during her time with Katie she wasn’t feeling “welcome”, to say the least. If you’re interested, though here’s her take on what was going on:

“… today in an interview with FNC’s Carl Cameron, Palin aimed to clear up that worry and said she was “flippant” during the previous interview because she was “annoyed” at the line of questioning. She did apologize several times during the interview and said that she should have named what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with because it was an “important” question. She named three Supreme Court verdicts she does oppose:

“Kennedy versus Louisiana, where the Supreme Court will tell a state that they can’t impose the death penalty, even on heinous crime of repeat child rapists. That a state, its rights are taken away by the Supreme Court and we would not be able to decide for ourselves whether the death penalty in a case like that should be implemented or not.” Palin said, “The Kelo case also, with eminent domain. That affects me, as a governor. It affected me as a mayor, also. Part that property rights are so precious in this nation and for the Supreme Court to have sided with government, instead of the people, the property owners on that. That was frustrating. And then another one personally affected me, also. The Exxon Valdez oil spill. Siding with the oil company, as they decimated Alaska’s coastline and much of our fisheries and much of our coastal communities livelihoods — the people who live there. And they sided with Exxon on the punishment, the punitive damage that was to be awarded.”

She also said that she “reads the same things that other people across the country read” including the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and the New York Times—despite it often being bashed by the McCain campaign.

She said she didn’t answer what periodicals she reads because she was “taken aback” by the question and saw it as Couric accusing Alaskans of not being “in tune with the rest of the world.”

Please note she also addresses the ridiculous assertion that she “couldn’t” name a periodical she reads, just in case you’re inclined to bring that up, too. If you decide you just simply can forgive these horrible transgressions, then I guess that’s just the way it is. Meanwhile, she still has my admiration and good will.

If the article had actually initially stressed the inaction of the RNC he might have a reasonable argument but both the original one and his follow-up clearly made it a Palin problem. He just couldn’t pass up a chance to snark at Palin – like someone else we all know. LOL

Throwing aside her journalistic integrity, former RNC Associate Director of Communications Moira Bagley took it upon herself to give lie to wholly unsubstantiated rumors by stoking the flames of post-election anti-Palin sentiments.
At Palin critic Davi…

OK, she looks credible, let’s take her word for it. My goodness.

Oh God.. give us a break .. who gives a shit.

If she was a man would anyone be talking about this?

VinceP1974 on January 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Of course we wouldn’t.

Again I have to ask, where was the oversight here? I’m not sure if $180,000 to clothe seven people is a lot of money given the unconscienable sums of money Obama spent during his campaign (would love to know what it cost to clothe Michelle and the girls — at least in the case of the former, whatever the figure was, it was too much because she looks frumpy pretty damn near all the time). Did someone just turn Gov. Palin loose in Neiman Marcus with a credit card and no spending limit? I doubt that’s the case, for if it were, I suspect the final tally would have been FAR less than $180K, given that the Palins are frugal people. But if it were true, what does that tell us — other than that the bigwigs in the McCain campaign were stupid and careless? And all of this from a man who pledged greater oversight of government spending if he were elected.

Seems to me the more likely scenario is that Palin was sent out to shop with some elitist high up in the campaign who was simply so mortified by her consignment store wardrobe that spending any less than $180K simply would not do.

Sorry, I just don’t buy that this woman is a “shopaholic” like some would suggest. It doesn’t fit with everything else we know about her.

Watch for High ranking McCain campign staff working in the “Hope & Change” administration. Obama always pays his debts.

portlandon on January 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM

My money is on Nicole Wallace, who I think it is fair to say is probably the one who was behind the whole Wardrobe-gate leak as well. Ah, I just love when women try to destroy each other. It’s so uplifting.

BTW, count me among those who stores clothes destined for Goodwill in garbage bags. Also, count me among those who lets the bag sit for weeks and months before I finally get around to dropping them off too. I guess someone needs to audit me or something. ;)

Oh, and Anna? I’ll fight you for those red shoes! ;)

I am so sorry for the republicans tried to tar and feather her and her entire family for the election loss

Sorry folks it was the republicans falut.
NOT hers..

the republicans abandoned their conservative principles
and allowed wholesale THEFT to run RAMPANT on wallstreet
all the while
Blaming all of their problems on palin

BULL CRAP.

why dont the republicans actually try to enforce
Our borders
Our language
Our laws
not blindly followijng rich aristocrats who just like theives jump of the train before it runs off the cliff..

Sorry but unil i see honesty and integrity in the republican party i will NOT VOTE period..
For both parties are completly CORRUPT

So why should i vote for Corrupt incompetance???