Emails Reveal McCain Campaign Misled The Public About Palin’s $150K Plus Shopping Spree

[babylonsister]

If they lied about something as mundane as this, makes me wonder what else they did/would have lied about down the road.


Emails Reveal McCain Campaign Misled The Public About Palin’s $150K Plus Shopping Spree


One of the more interesting moments of the 2008 presidential campaign came when Politico revealed that the Republican National Committee had spent over $150,000 on clothes and accessories from luxury stores for Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her family. The high-end shopping spree conflicted with Palin’s image of a modest hockey mom. When confronted with the news, a campaign spokesperson replied, “It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.”

But in an online-only companion piece to his big new profile of the former Alaska governor, Vanity Fair’s Michael Gross reports that internal emails and other records reveal that this claim and others about the fate of the clothes were false:

The records of those purchases also reveal that Palin’s later claims—that “we had three days of using clothes that the R.N.C. purchased” (at the Republican National Convention) and that she understood the clothes to have been “loaned to us during the convention”—were completely false. So was the spin of Palin’s campaign spokesperson, who stated on October 22 that “it was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.” On October 23, in a previously unpublished e-mail (quoted below), Palin wrote that she had no idea the clothes would eventually need to be returned, and suggested that she believed the items were being given to her and her family as gifts.

There was at least one other incident in which the campaign misrepresented purchases for Palin. The day before daughter Bristol’s birthday, Palin aides exchanged emails about buying her a birthday present, with one saying they had “picked up a few dress options at saks during the event today.” That staffer charged $1,312.94 at Saks 5th Avenue in Cincinnati the same day. However, that charge was later mislabeled “as if it were made not for Bristol but for the candidate’s appearance on Saturday Night Live. (The memo line reads ‘Clothes-SNL.’).”

more...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/01/plain-misled-shopping-spree/

[malaise]

1. Truth will out

GRIFTERS Inc. :rofl:

[atreides1]

9. Truth isn't important

To people who lack the ability to form independent thought. You'd get a better reaction from a zombie

[MilesColtrane]

2. Meh....that's sooo yesterday's news.

When does Dancing With the Grifters come on!?

[Warpy]

3. Hell, it's easy to burn through a G at Sak's

You can do that just on underwear and come out with maybe two bags.

One of my mother's Depression stories is of how she saved up and went in to Sak's and bought a pair of underpants just for the bag and bragging rights.

I think the real problem is that the Head Grifter insisted on Sak's when she could have bought the same thing at Macy's for 50% less. Her sense of entitlement is just plain staggering.

But yes, the expectation that the campaign clothing she really did need would be hers is valid. The spree for Todd and the kiddies was not.

[tanyev]

4. LOL from the comments: Swag-Hag

:rofl:

[Demit]

6. "Actually, the clothing and accessories did go to $arah’s favorite charity."

—just as good!

[C_U_L8R]

5. I trust she declared all those 'gifts'

on her taxes. Perhaps agent Mike of the IRS should double-check.

[hobbit709]

7. What didn't they lie about-that list would be MUCH shorter.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. The true morality of the anti-equality 'Christians' of America

They lie with impunity, cheat, steal, and the only visible aspect of their alleged faith is their abiding bigotry against gay people. That which Sarah does, all of those like her will do, for they see themselves as having freedom to do anything that serves their personal agendas.
I can think of several other important political figures who hold the same set of dogmas that Palin holds. The Biblical fact is that all Christian women are forbidden the wearing of costly clothing, by the same author that attacks gay people. Anyone who claims that faith and yet is wearing cloths meant to draw attention to their phsical looks is failing their own faith, and if they also repeat the anti-equality dogmas, they are being hugely hypocritical. Not just Palin, but any and all who do so.
They want to annouce they are 'Christians' to rationalize their bigotry, but they see no worth in any form of personal practice of that faith. God is in the mix, one man, one lavishly adorned woman! Hallelujah!

[bullwinkle428]

16. Her OWN KIDS totally called her out for being a Christian hypocrite!!

"Sometimes the children rebelled. A campaign aide remembers that one of the Palin children found her mother’s public displays of piety especially grating. Though Palin prayed and read the Bible every night, aides never saw the family join her for devotionals. “You’re just putting on a show. You’re so fake,” one of the children said when Palin made a point of praying in front of other people. “This is not who you are. Why are you pretending to be something you’re not?”"

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?currentPage=all

[Old and In the Way]

10. Looks like the RNC/GOP are working hard to torpedo any Palin 2012

momentum...before it has a chance to really start. This story and the one's outlining Palin's demands for doing speaking engagements as well as her demands for controlling interviews are getting pushed, not because Democrats are nervous about a Palin campaign; rather, I think they're getting pushed by a Republican Party that is getting quite nervous about a Palin-TeaParty primary threat to a GOP plan for winning the WH in 2012.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Good observation.

BTW, Old And In The Way is one of my all time favorite albums. :)

[NeedleCast]

11. Title of OP could have stopped after the word Public and still be 100% accurate

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. LOL. I had forgotten about that charity lie.

I suppose they always planned on donating the pilfered building supplies from their ill-gotten lake house.:rofl:

... and the shady per diems.

[gratuitous]

14. The point is well taken

If they lied about this, what else did they lie about that was of some consequence? What would they be lying about today if they had succeeded to the White House? It would have been incredibly simple to say, "Look, the Palins are simple country folk from Alaska. Making appearances all over the country to campaign for the presidency, we want the candidates to look good, and wear nice clothes. Of course we outfitted her and the entire family with a nice wardrobe. This was deemed to be a legitimate campaign expenditure." Story pretty much ends there. Instead, we're treated to the intelligence-insulting protestations that it wasn't really $150,000, or that the clothes are going to charity after the campaign. And this woman is being bruited about as a serious candidate for 2012? The Republicans are pretty desperate.

[Liberal_Dog]

15. Well, Gee Whiz, I Am Absolutely Shocked!!!

I never thought that the McCain camp would do anything like this. :sarcasm: