I read that and thought, why are they specifying that he was wearing a suit and tie?? Does that imply something?
Perhaps slightly less than would be implied had he answered the door wearing nothing but a whimsical bowtie.
“Tom Kean answered the door with nothing but a tutu, a propeller beanie, and a whimsical bowtie. How this will affect his chances in November remains to be seen.”
It definitely implies something, but what, I have no clue. Who puts on a suit and tie when they’re not planning on going to work or some other official event? Dress shirt and slacks, sure, that might be all of his wardrobe. Jacket, maybe, if he finds it comfortable. But who wears a tie to answer the door when they’re staying home?
It means modern reporters don’t know the difference between formal wear, evening attire, smoking jackets, etc.
Nor modern readers.
That’s not relevant here, though, unless he actually met the reporter wearing evening attire or something (which would, of course, be even more bizarre). A suit and tie, as they describe him wearing, would be a perfectly normal thing for a Congressman to wear… to work. And even with as high-fashion-ignorant as most people are these days, I’m sure everyone can distinguish between tie and no-tie.
The article says he was wearing a dark suit and red tie. When is that appropriate at-home wear?
Aha! That strengthens the alien-cloned theory. See, that was what he was wearing when they snatched him, and they don’t understand the whole idea that clothes are detatchable rather than innate to the being like a furry pelt.
It’s so obvious when you think about it.
All I know is that, as one of his constituents, I would want an explanation. I don’t want a representative who is not there doing his job, and I don’t want a representative who is emotionally unstable.
If you’re one of his Republican constituents, the only explanation you need is “I’m a Republican.”
Dress shirt, tie, and blazer/suit jacket … I could understand if he has to be on video conference calls (which I could also understand).
And for some people, at that point, maybe the matching suit pants are as good as khakis or jeans?
Maybe.
OK the more simple implication is that he had just arrived from, or was about to leave for, some place where business attire would be appropriate, but that was not a public event where his presence would be announced.
Really, I foresee a statement on June 30 that will leave a bunch of people going either (A) “What? And you couldn’t just TELL someone?” or (B) “Huh? That did not explain anything!”
If it was a red bow tie, I’m sticking with my “he was recruited into the Nation of Islam” theory.
I’m guessing that the official statement will just be “out for medical reasons”, same as they’re saying now. So, pretty much option B.
Given that he’s up for re-election, it’s reasonable for his constituents to want more details on his health; is he so infirm that he wouldn’t be able to properly serve them?
A red tie, huh? Was it hanging down below his belt buckle? If so, I think he was just imitating someone.
I rather liked the title on the push notification I got. “Absent lawmaker spotted” like we finally got a confirmed view of some rare bird.