But, yes, I’ve known some people who’ve worked in Alaskan fisheries. It’s hard seasonal work and high pay.
Then again, investment bankers work very hard as well.
Palin’s part-time work isn’t especially relevant to this thread and it certainly isn’t a qualification for the Presidency.
Beating a dead horse: There are legal issues involved here, which should be dealt with. Alaska is fairly corrupt state: I don’t want their dubious practices transplanted to the lower 48. There is ironclad evidence of $150,000 of clothing receipts, which baffles even NY fashion experts. There is much that needs explanation.
It appear that the only record of ‘family members’ being given clothes are $4,000 for men’s suits (totally appropriate, since Todd Palin traveled for the campaign independently and made numerous campaign appearances and solo fundraisers), and $92 for baby goods. That’s it.
Also, the same person(s) making these accusations has turned out to be wrong about just about everything else that was also claimed. For example, that Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent, that she didn’t know the countries in NAFTA, etc. There was also a claim in Newsweek that Palin wouldn’t go on stage at a rally with John Sunnuni because he was pro-choice. That turns out to be wrong too (he’s pro-life, and Palin did appear with him. The person who didn’t appear could do it because he didn’t have a Secret Service clearance).
So just perhaps you might consider that the whole clothing ‘scandal’ might just be more of the same sour grapes from some unknown campaign staffer who has already been disproven about just about everything else.
As for when Palin is giving back the clothes, she says they were never hers in the first place, that the RNC bought them for the campaign and she never assumed she would be keeping them. I’m not sure they even went back with her to Alaska. The only comment she made about that was, “I think they’re still in the belly of the plane”. And honestly, does she strike you as the kind of person who would suffer this much heat just to try to keep a bunch of designer clothes that are not much use in Alaska? Especially since she’d instantly be questioned if she showed up anywhere wearing it?
Sam Stone Aren’t we just the picture of gracious victory here at the SDMB? It’s amazing that people still want to tear Sarah Palin down now that it’s over and she lost. Grasping at straws even though their guy won. It’s funny in all this, I’ve grown an affection for Sarah Palin. I wanted her to lose and lose hard, but through all the flack she’s gotten I think she has handled herself quite well.
I think you’d rather not be pressing me to be totally honest about my opinion of Palin’s ethical standards–leave me a little room to be a gracious winner, after all.
I think back in the Clinton era they called it “The politics of personal destruction”, only it was something Republicans did, and Liberals were aghast over. As it turns out, I guess the only thing they didn’t like was they never had the opportunity to do it themselves. Now they have, and they’ve gone after Palin with amazing viciousness.
I do appreciate people like you who are capable of opposing her without the need to destroy her as a human being.
The real story on Sarah Palin is that she is a woman with a remarkable career and life story, who was plucked out of a fairly isolated state and thrust onto the world stage with little preparation, and it showed. She did her best for the campaign, they lost, and she went home. She was savaged in the press, the subject of amazingly cruel speculation and ad-hominem smears, and she took it all with good grace and a smile.
Fine by me. In that case, doesn’t it make sense for the RNC to scotch these rumors promptly by saying “Yes, we have retrieved the clothes that we lent to Governor Palin for the campaign, and here’s the documentation on what we did with them, and here’s the evidence that we donated the proceeds to charity”?
Spare us the moaning about how the Librul Media just isn’t willing to report it. They’ve got a website, and they’ve got plenty of Republican bloggers and media that could get the message out.
After all, when people were trying to smear Obama with accusations that he wasn’t really born in Hawaii, he took the transparency route. He provided scanned images of his birth certificate and let a reporter take photos of it.
A lot of people still refused to be convinced, of course, but I think we’re much more reasonable than that around here. Show us reliable documentation of a reasonable story, and we’ll accept it.
Indeed it might. But if it’s all a pack of lies from one disgruntled staffer and everybody else in the McCain campaign loves Palin and she never did anything the least bit questionable, then the rumors should be easy to disprove, right? Here are all the clothes, here’s the documentation on how we’re disposing of them, here’s the legal proof of our compliance with campaign finance laws, thank you and have a nice day. Simple as that.
I think you’re being a little bit naive in automatically assuming that somebody who says something bad about Palin anonymously is probably lying, but somebody who says something good about her on the record isn’t. Gee, haven’t you ever seen a two-faced politician before?
Personally, I’m keeping an open mind about this until I see convincing evidence one way or the other. And no, I don’t agree that the issue of whether or not Palin and/or the RNC are breaking the law is trivial.
It may be that way in Canada, but there is a waiting list for jobs on the North Slope of Alaska. I had a friend who waited three years to get a job in the oil patch, and he knew somebody. The supply of people willing to work in places like Prudhoe Bay greatly exceeds the demand.
Does Mrs. Palin bear no responsibility herself, then, for agreeing to undertake it? She must have known better than anyone else that she was ill-prepared for both the campaign and the possibility of being vice-president or even president. I don’t think it was Country First, I think she got great big stars in her eyes and jumped at the chance. I think this is as revealing of her character as any other incident, and I don’t think it reflects well on her.
Someone once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”. While some of the “attacks” on her were ridiculous, the questions about the baby, etc., she was a legitimate target for questions and she blew it. She wasn’t up to the job. She was a bad choice.
I don’t much care about the clothes, they’re of no use to anyone and if it wasn’t breaking some law or another she should be able to keep them. Don’t suppose that the rustic denizens of Wasilla won’t know style when they see it - and they deserve some fun, too.
Oh, I think Palin knows from the politics of personal destruction. She’s the one who said that Obama was “palling around with terrorists”, remember?
I don’t condone vicious and unsupported smears on any candidate, but it’s hard to feel sorry for Palin. She was in there playing the smear-and-antagonism game herself (as Obama was not, by the way), and she lost. Well, it’s a little late now for her to suddenly claim that the press is riding her too hard and devoting too much attention to flimsy accusations.
And I have to remind you that whether the current anti-Palin rumors are true or not, they’re coming from somebody in the McCain camp and getting serious attention on Fox News. You can’t blame this one on the liberals, pal. Methinks Republicans need to find and reprimand the lying smearer(s) in their own ranks before they start blaming the lying smears on the media.
I don’t see how that logically follows. Since when has the mainstream media required multiple sources before reporting on a story?
And even if there were multiple sources, they remain anonymous. We don’t know whether these people have an ax to grind, or even whether they’re in a position to know the facts accurately. We certainly haven’t seen that they’re willing to stake their names on their claims.
So let me understand you, please: it’s “amazing viciousness” to request that Palin do exactly what she offered to do when the question of the clothing was first raised, i.e., give them back or donate them to charity when the campaign is over?
She would be well served to have donated every stitch within five minutes of conceding, wouldn’t she? That would have pretty shut every liberal mouth intent on harping on this issue, no? What could we say? She wasn’t quick enough? She wasn’t thorough enough? We’d look like fools if we tried that. So why hasn’t she shut our mouths good and proper?
This is like the whole issue of Palin’s pregnancy. All it would have taken to shut everyone up would have been to release a few official hospital records, release her obstetrician to answer ten minutes’ worth of questions from the press, and–zap! The story disappears. But because she doesn’t do anything like those simple actions, the story drags on, and reporters are still digging through the records, trying to get at the truth.
I think that’s how she likes it: she can claim that the media is out to get her, and she’s fighting them back. Maybe that appeals to her supporters, but everyone else is going to think there’s something there even if nothing turns up. And people who DISlike her–well, I don’t want to shock you with what we think is going on.
Of course. Nobody’s faulting Fox News – or even the mainstream media – for reporting that some unknown sources in the McCain camp are making these claims. They’re reporting this news, as they should.
Fox News is NOT declaring that these rumors are accurate. Any reporter who makes such a claim – or for that matter, any political commentator – wiould be behaving recklessly.
Which would mean that about 85% of the nasty stories would remain in the news since it is conservatives from within the McCain camp starting the stories and conservative Fox News doing the heavy lifting to report them.
There are a number of “liberals” in private (such as anonymous posters on this board) who have expressed a certain high degree of Schaedenfreude over trivial and unsupported claims, but I have seen nothing from the Left that is any worse than (or even as bad as, sometimes) stuff from Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity, and their ilk.
Sniping about Republican rumors about Republican actions (reported by Republicans) is not a very courteous thing to do. OTOH, the vile nonsense that Palin spewed on the campaign trail provided me no impetus to tell the shallower members of the Right or the Left to leave her alone.
There is a $92 purchase from a baby clothes store Pacifier on 9/10, and a separate $98 charge from the same store (at a different location) on 9/25. The $4,902 purchase from Atelier is being reported as a purchase from Atelier in New York, ostensibly for suits for Todd Palin, because Atelier is a high-end menswear shop. Conveniently, they are online and you can look at the clothes that they sell, none of which appear to be remotely appropriate for campaigning for national office. Also, they do not appear to fit into Todd Palin’s sartorial idiom, if you will.
This may actually be a failure of investigative journalism. The scan of the expense reports that started all of this is here and you can see that Atelier is listed as having its address at 7th and 47 in New York. That’s not the address of the mens store Atelier, but it is the address of the NYV Doubletree hotel, where the Atelier Designers have three fashion shows a year. (Women’s fashion, if you’re interested.) There was a show there this September from the 13th to the 15th. The reimbursement form says 9/10, but the AP article says that the dates may not match exactly. (In the context of asking the proprietor of the mens fashion shop to look at other dates.)
Second, it’s illegal to buy clothes using campaign contributions. This was already pointed out, but it deserves to be mentioned again. The law in question is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The Palins’ wardrobes may or may not be illegal under this law, as they were paid for by the RNC and not the campaign itself. There’s a politico story here which quotes lawyers who say there may be some wiggle room, depending on exactly what account the purchases were made out of. An AP story published on the same day (which, incidentally, has the $4,902 figure) quotes a different lawyer who says otherwise. For the record, the Politico story’s lawyer works for a firm which advises corporations on donations to political campaigns; the AP story’s lawyer is former counsel for the FEC. Opinion is divided among the lawyer-types, which probably means… well it could mean anything.
Even the lawyers who think that everything was on the up and up admit that there are tax issues. The whole idea of donating the clothes to charity wasn’t to make it legal for the campaign to have bought them, it was to enable the Palins to avoid paying taxes on the clothes. As noted above, the yearly income of the Palin family is more or less the same as the reported clothing expenditures.
Exactly. I am fed to the back teeth by people (not just here) telling me that I should play nice when it’s been the opposition who has done the character assassination. Reps truly can dish it out, but not take it. What kind of game is this? That side gets to say whatever it wants and that’s just politics, but when “my” side does the same thing, suddenly we aren’t taking the high road and we should all behave better? I am not foaming at the mouth re this issue. I only want her held accountable and I want her to keep her word. If she does so, I’ll stop being snide about her. McCain conceded with grace and dignity and I admire him for that. You won’t hear snark from me re McCain. Palin is another kettle of fish.
I like your 2nd point, which is your main one - anonymous accounts need to be weighed accordingly.
On the smaller one, that a story like this would all come from one disgruntled staffer is highly unlikely, unless this was emphasized in the original piece. Multiple sourcing has never been a fixed requirement, but it’s always been understood as something which is desirable.
Moreover, the LA Times piece explicitly refers to aides in the McCain campaign. That’s a plural. To be clear, I’m not saying that every allegation is triple-sourced. But nor is my position exactly controversial; as the LA Times puts it, "Tensions have simmered for much of the last month between aides loyal to McCain and those loyal to Palin, but they boiled over after the Republican nominee’s defeat, as both sides spoke freely – though anonymously – about the wardrobe controversy and other conflicts. "
The article also states that, “Two aides to McCain and two to Palin discussed the tensions but asked that their names not be revealed, saying they were not comfortable speaking openly about internal operations.”
