Just Making It Up

Now the smears have become stupid gossip type smears from anonymous sources. Anyone that buys any of it is a complete idiot.

The interesting thing is the assumed source... McCain people via Fox news. This suggests, if the last few years haven't yet, that moles are everywhere. It's time to clean house and trust only those that have earned the trust.

They go after Palin because she isn't a Washington Wonk. Regardless of how they edit her to discredit her, if you listen to what she is actually saying (especially now that she not under McCain's muddled message) she's making the right points.

She needs to start making money, get on the talk circuit and run in 2012. I wish it had been Thompson/Palin this year. Palin could be a great influence in 2010 for helping targeted races which would help with her own run in 2012. Once the one becomes mortal, Hillary should do more damage to the one in 2012 regardless of if she gets the nod.

It's odd that the libertarians have joined in the trashing of Sarah (I guess they bought the religious bigot bull.)

Palin is one to be nipped in the bud if you are dependent on the entrenched theftocracy.

Ken Anthony - "It's odd that the libertarians have joined in the trashing of Sarah..."

Not at all odd. How many of the most vocal libertarians are not dependent on maintaining the status quo?

I agree that the whispering campaign against Sarah Palin is entirely unsatisfactory and should be taken with a lot of skepticism. Journalists should do more to guard against the possible low motives of anonymous sources. In this case, so should the McCain campaign. They could dispel a lot of these ugly rumors simply by releasing a full account of what clothing was bought for Palin and her family, by whom, and when. It's amazing that they are saying almost nothing on the record while the gossip flies back and forth.

I also agree with Ken that we should look at what Palin is saying herself. Absolutely, that's the way to treat people fairly, to start with their own words first.

For instance, in late October, an interesting statement released in Palin's said this about Senator Ted Stevens:

Alaskans are grateful for his decades of public service but the time has come for him to step aside. Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Ted Stevens should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress.

Not after the will of the people has been made manifest via that vote.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/mccain-calls-stevens-step/
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov08/0,4670,PalinClothing,00.html

The reaction to Palin could have been predicted if they were familiar with how Jean Kirkpatrick was treated during the Reagan years. At one point,it looked like she might make a run at the Oval office. The subsequent attacks were vicious and low without ever confronting the woman's positions and accomplishments. Berke Breathed had her going out with Bill the Cat. A movie was made where a right wing woman was running for office who turned out to be a man in disguise.

You'll see a lot more of these kind of attacks if Palin comes back. Respect for women is insisted upon only so long as it supports left goals/strategy, as Tammy Bruce found out.

The flip side of this is that since the machinary is in place, it can be used just as Justice Thomas played on his blackness to get into the SCOTUS. When she is her own woman and no longer tied to McCainiac's coattails I expect this will be the stategy against the smear merchants.

Palin is a skilled politician. Her remarks to the press upon returning to AK were thoughtful, and I suspect will be effective in shutting up the anonymous character-assassins. I think she will do OK in the long run, if she can dodge the coming bureaucratic and legal attacks from the Obama administration.

WRT Sen. Stevens, I thought Palin said exactly the right things: she respects the voters, but if the Senate decides to kick Stevens out she will reevaluate the situation.

(If I were Alaskan I would have voted for Stevens too. His reelection was like a big "FU" to the Democrats. I suspect that at least some of the anti-gay-marriage referenda passed for this reason.)

Hmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

"Way to go, Governor Palin. Alaskans are grateful for Senator Stevens, and we wouldn't want a felony conviction to stand in the way of the will of the people. "

Her reasoning is perfectly correct.

1. She's a Governor, not a dictator.

2. She doesn't have the -authority- to displace Stevens, which may have escaped you.

3. Your opinion on this is irrelevant because we all, including -you-, know that had she done something to replace Stevens you'd be here screaming about her ignoring the will of the people just like the US Supreme Court did in 2000 or some such nonsense.

WRT Sen. Stevens, I thought Palin said exactly the right things

Which time? When she said that he should resign even if he is elected, or when she took it back in the face of the will of the people?

If I were Alaskan I would have voted for Stevens too. His reelection was like a big "FU" to the Democrats.

Rand said on Thursday that we have to work together. That sounds more constructive than, we should reelect a convicted felon as a big "FU" to the Democrats.

She doesn't have the -authority- to displace Stevens

memomachine, your points 1 and 2 seem to say the same thing, so I'll take this phrasing. If what's fundamental is that she doesn't have the authority to yank Stevens, why did she ask him to resign the week before?

Your opinion on this is irrelevant

Well you're right, my opinion is irrelevant. I also won't slam Palin for changing her mind, because she is entitled to do that. The question is, which of her two stances is libertarian? Is it more libertarian to say that convicted felons should resign from office? Or to say that the will of 48.04% of the people is paramount if it's the plurality, that it's then wrong to ask Stevens to resign even if he did break the law?

Or is it perhaps libertarian to elect a convicted felon as an "FU" to the Democrats, if the Democrats are the enemy of libertarianism? Again, that doesn't sound consistent with Rand's call for cooperation, which I thought was a wise sentiment, but on the other hand my opinion is irrelevant.

Another question is whether Palin might have read the will of the people a little too soon, with so many uncounted absentee ballots out there. Maybe if sending an "FU" to the Democrats is the top priority, then she should not only retract her request to Stevens to resign, but also expect and hope that his lead holds?

Hmmmm.

@ Jim Harris is wasting my time by saying ...

1."memomachine, your points 1 and 2 seem to say the same thing, so I'll take this phrasing. If what's fundamental is that she doesn't have the authority to yank Stevens, why did she ask him to resign the week before?"

Uhhh. Because it was --before-- the election?

Did that help comprehension or should I try again?

2. "Well you're right, my opinion is irrelevant. I also won't slam Palin for changing her mind, because she is entitled to do that. The question is, which of her two stances is libertarian?"

A. Who cares if you "slam" Palin?

B. She has never claimed to be "libertarian".

3. "Is it more libertarian to say that convicted felons should resign from office? Or to say that the will of 48.04% of the people is paramount if it's the plurality, that it's then wrong to ask Stevens to resign even if he did break the law?"

Well considering that this is a Republic and that the governed choose who governs then I'd have to point out that the voters have the last voice.

Did you fail Social Studies?

4. "Or is it perhaps libertarian to elect a convicted felon as an "FU" to the Democrats, if the Democrats are the enemy of libertarianism? Again, that doesn't sound consistent with Rand's call for cooperation, which I thought was a wise sentiment, but on the other hand my opinion is irrelevant."

A. She's not a "libertarian"

B. So what? In your response to this please explain why the Democrats in Congress haven't forced out Rangel and Mr. $90,000-in-a-freezer. Or Chris "WTF!? I got a good deal on my mortgage?" Dodd. Or all the rest frankly.

5. "Another question is whether Palin might have read the will of the people a little too soon, with so many uncounted absentee ballots out there. Maybe if sending an "FU" to the Democrats is the top priority, then she should not only retract her request to Stevens to resign, but also expect and hope that his lead holds?"

Well if the additional votes counted means that Stevens loses then she won't -have- to ask him to resign then.

...

You don't quite get this voting thing do you?

That's ok. The way Democrats routinely steal elections I figure most Democrats don't understand voting either.

She has never claimed to be "libertarian".

Well no, but Rand said that she was. Of course, that does not mean that absolutely everything that she says is libertarian, hence the question this time since she went both ways.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/09/a_libertarian_g.html

In your response to this please explain why the Democrats in Congress haven't forced out Rangel and Mr. $90,000-in-a-freezer.

First off I would ask William Jefferson of Louisiana to resign (and I hope that Sarah Palin agrees, regardless of the will of the people). Second, there is a difference between indictment and conviction. An indictment is a type of accusation, which may or may not be true. A conviction also may or may not be true, but it's more than an accusation, it's proof of guilt by legal standards. Not nearly as many people asked Stevens to resign when he had merely been indicted.

You don't quite get this voting thing do you?

Maybe not, if a vote means that you shouldn't even ask people to resign. I remember, for instance, that people asked Clinton to resigned during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Did that request wrongly defy the will of the people?

we wouldn't want a felony conviction to stand in the way of the will of the people

Jim, I think your thinking is a little muddled here. You're speaking as if the law is something that comes from higher and purer sources than the will of the people. As if the will of the people isn't sufficient to redefine (if it wants) what is, and isn't, a crime. Have you forgotten we live in a republic, where the people are sovereign? Are you thinking "the law" comes from some other source -- a king, God, the gathered minds of our best law professors -- and so it can be in some kind of conflict with the will of the people?

You can reasonably ask the people of Alaska to make up their damn minds -- is this guy a criminal or a good representative of the people? They seem to have sent two different messages here.

But, unless you want to open the door to people who don't like Barack Obama starting to get violent in the streets, because his election is not the "right" result, I think you need to remember that a profound respect for the will of the people (which is kind of Governor Palin's point) is what divides American government from an autocratic or aristocratic system.

As for Governor Palin changing her mind about stuff, including this: this is why we elect men and women as political leaders, not robots. When events change, they can adapt. Machines cannot.

I'm getting the feeling here that you'd like to be ruled by a superintelligent Star Trek computer with absolute power over you, kind of an M-5 beast, or Data the humanoid android, that could make sure the will of the people doesn't make dumb decisions. Much as I think the people have done just that (make a dumb decision) this Tuesday, I don't agree.

If the moderate and conservative voices here don't understand how fanatical the far left really is, just look at Jim Harris. In a post about dumb smears he's still attacking the Governor of Alaska. Of course, rapid to the point of insanity partisan ideologue that he is, he wouldn't provide the whole set of quotes. That or he's just lazy.

"The Alaska voters have spoken and me not being a dictator, won't be telling anyone what to do."

Yes Jim, let's have full disclosure. The RNC shows receipts for the clothes and the Obama campaign opens their on line contribution books to the DOJ. In the interests of bipartisanship, don't you know.

That's "rabid"

You can reasonably ask the people of Alaska to make up their damn minds -- is this guy a criminal or a good representative of the people? They seem to have sent two different messages here.

Stevens was convicted in Federal court, so there is no contradiction here. The verdict of the American people is that he is guilty of concealing bribes. But the will of the Alaskan people (as Palin reads it anyway) is that they are grateful to him and he is not a criminal.

That could also explain Palin's two different messages. When she ran for national office, she tried to show that she accepted the will and laws of the American people. But now that she is back in Alaska, she only represents Alaskans. Which way is right? Maybe they are both right, if they are both the will of the people. Or maybe Alaskans are more right, if Alaska is more libertarian than the rest of the country.

I'm getting the feeling here that you'd like to be ruled by a superintelligent Star Trek computer

Look, all I am asking is which time Palin was right and/or libertarian. Was she right when she asked Stevens to resign even if he is reelected? Or was she right when she didn't want to ask him to resign because he was reelected? It may seem a bit contradictory, but it shouldn't take a Vulcan mind meld to straighten it out.

You're still a fool Jim, Sarah's been fighting the
Stevens/Murkowski machine since at least 2003, when she resigned from the petroleum commision; jast as she came to fight Stein, Carbey, & co. In the little more than a dozen years, that she's been in executive office, she has challenged the status quo every step of the way. Ironically it It
was the 'independent' Ron Paul faction that supported his nomination; yet another proof of their stupidity; as if the Ashley Todd and the truther brigades didn't cinch it. Indications are that Begich is stealing the seat, much like Franken in Minnesota. Or Gore built up his nation wide totals while everyone was focused on Florida.
Stevens is a contemptible human being, yet the shenanigans in his trial, from the behavior of that AWOL jury to the juries apparent
misunderstanding of the instructions they used to convict him on.

Sarah is in favor of NAFTA, CAFTA and the Colombian free trade act; Obama has made every argument against it. She has dealt with Canada on the pipeline, the fisheries issue, et al.In contradiction to the work of his own advisors. She is driven by her convictions and simple human decency to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur. She sees that we can' rely on the Sauds; re AbQuaiq, Chavez, the Nigerian and Equatorian Guinea for our energy needs. Obama's only complaint was that oil prices rose too quickly, and that America should learn to live with less.

On a larger point, doesn't it tell you something that Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, the Janjaweed master in the Sudan, AQ all congratulated the President-Elect; doesn't that make you the slightest bit un easy. That those who have tried to demonize America's every action; have his ear.

Just for the record, to correct Jim Harris' usual deranged delusions, I didn't say that Sarah Palin was a libertarian. IIRC, I said that she was the closest thing to one on a major-party ticket since Barry Goldwater.

Sarah's been fighting the Stevens/Murkowski machine since at least 2003

She has? Murkowski, sure, I can see that the Palins and the Murkowskis don't care for each other, but Stevens? "Alaskans are grateful for his decades of public service" doesn't sound like a fight that goes all the way back.

Besides, if Palin has been fighting Stevens all this time, and since she did say that he should resign even if he is re-elected, why not stick to that?

Indications are that Begich is stealing the seat

So that's why Palin can say that Stevens is the will of the people? It's because the absentee ballots are just Begich trying to steal the election?

> This week, Palin was asked whether she stood by her call for Stevens to resign, and she made this interesting statement directly: "Not after the will of the people has been made manifest via that vote."

My personal suspicion is that she's still mulling over whether or not to run for his Senate seat in the special election, and wants to see how things go first. It would be seen as too forward for her to openly call for his resignation at this time, especially since it's pretty much a certainty that he's going to resign anyways.

Just for the record, to correct Jim Harris' usual deranged delusions, I didn't say that Sarah Palin was a libertarian.

I apologize for misunderstanding you, Rand, but I linked to a different post than the Goldwater one. The title of the post that I linked was "A Libertarian Governor", and I thought that you meant that Palin is a libertarian governor. Here is the link again.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/09/a_libertarian_g.html

You're entitled to clarify what you meant by the title, of course. Would "A Relatively Libertarian Governor" have been more what you had in mind?

Granted, in the comments section you said that no one is ideologically perfect, and I meant to acknowledge that in this thread. I was just asking which time she was being libertarian, if either time: When she asked Stevens to resign even if he is re-elected, or when she did not want to ask Stevens to resign because he was re-elected.

I know that this may come as a shock, but not all acts, even political acts, are "libertarian" or "nonlibertarian."

It would be seen as too forward for her to openly call for his resignation at this time, especially since it's pretty much a certainty that he's going to resign anyways.

I see, so when she said in October that Stevens should resign even if he is re-elected, she took the side of justice, and it didn't connect to her because it looked like she could be elected vice president. But if she repeated that now, it would come across as opportunism and as beating a dead horse, so it's better to fall back to the will of the people.

I know that this may come as a shock, but not all acts, even political acts, are "libertarian" or "nonlibertarian."

That's no shock at all, Rand. But in this case, I personally would say that it is libertarian to ask a bribed and convicted politician to resign, especially one from your own party and especially if it's Ted Stevens. For various reasons. Bribery is a good argument for limited government, Stevens is a pork barrel king (#2 in the Porkbusters hall of shame), it's important to stand on principle, democracy is two wolves and a sheep, etc.

On the other hand I don't really see the libertarian rationale to take back the call to resign, just because Stevens was re-elected. Especially not if the ballots are still being counted. There is a theme in this post that shrinking back was an act of humility, but frankly it looks like un-libertarian pandering.

Of course you could say that this is just one of Palin's ideologically imperfect moments.

It doesn't matter, Begich is stealing the election despite his own corruption. I despise Stevens, but he may actually have a point in the appeals. If he doesn't want to go; just like the Ron Paul faction
that actually supported his nomination; you can't force him out. Would have preferred Bill Cuddy, hell Charlie the Tuna; over him.

The distinction is that the President elect is a product of the Daley machine, supported by the Ayers, Wright, Phleger forces; financed by Rezko, the Pritzker family interests. One has to ask why.

Jim, I don't find the changes in Palin's stance towards Stevens to be interesting or relevant. First, she hasn't actually backtracked on her earlier call for Stevens to resign, but merely has said that she will stop asking Stevens to resign. Second, this observation doesn't, no matter how it is interpreted, shed light on the recent accusations against her.

A closer glance at your original post shows once again the underhanded and illogical way you continue to argue in these interminable threads. You start with insincere concern about the "whispering campaign" and segue into the dig on Palin.

All I can say is that if that is the worst you can come up with, you ought to shut up.

A closer glance at your original post shows once again the underhanded and illogical way you continue to argue in these interminable threads.

Why do you have no objection to any of the falsehoods and wild tangents issued by anyone else in this thread --- Ayers, Wright, Rezko, $90,000-in-a-freezer, you name it --- but discussing one of Sarah Palin's central post-election statements is "underhanded and illogical"? You are implying that moving the topic by an inch is intolerable if it's contentious, but moving it by a mile is just fine if it's harmonious. That amounts to controlling the narrative, not protecting the topic.

This is the only thread that I've been in in about the past dozen. If you don't like the narrative, all you have to do is read the other threads.

Is it plausible that I have just invented a contradiction, and that Palin hasn't actually backtracked? I don't think that any reasonable person can say that "Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Ted Stevens should step aside" is consistent with "Not after the will of the people has been made manifest via that vote". It looks especially inconsistent given that, in fact, the will of the people is not yet manifest.

You start with insincere concern about the "whispering campaign"

Except that it isn't an insincere concern. The anonymous criticisms of Palin's conduct in the campaign really and truly are unsatisfactory. I'm not necessarily concerned for Palin herself, if that's what you mean --- that depends on certain facts that no one has come forward with. But yes, it's a concern, and it's also true that the lack of explanations from the campaign make Palin look bad.

For instance, Alan Colmes asked Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, a good question about the $150,000 in clothes. He asked, "What about the decision to spend $150,000 on clothing? Whose decision was that?" What Davis should have said is, "I'm very glad you asked that question. A junior campaign aide named Frank Lee Bogus went wild with a credit card and bought a lot of clothes that Palin didn't want, and we have posted a detailed spending record on our web site. We want everyone to know how dissatisfied we are with the work of Mr. Bogus." What actually happened was that Davis had a lot to say, but he didn't answer the question. This being Alan Colmes, he acted as if Davis had answered the question.

Worse, Davis argued in the alternative. First, he vaguely said that "a lot of these issues are overblown". Second, he said that "somebody" came in to outfit her, but he didn't say who. Third, he said that "nobody ever explained to her" that the convention was paying for the clothes. Huh? What misconception would that have dispelled? Fourth, he said that "I'm not sure she really understood what the parameters are". Again, what? At the end of the argument, he seems to imply that actually it was Palin's mistake somehow, it was that she didn't understand the "parameters".

This is an incredible amount of handwaving in the face of stark accusations. The Washington Post said that in this shopping spree someone bought a pair of silk boxer shorts for Todd Palin. What is the explanation for that? Is it important for husbands of politicians to wear silk boxer shorts under their suits at the photo ops? Rick Davis could have said no, that's a lie, no one bought silk boxer shorts for Todd Palin. After all, it was anonymously sourced, so it could have been a lie. But what he actually said was, "I'm not sure she really understood what the parameters are". That clears the air about as well as a stink bomb.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/rick_davis_on_the_sarah_palin.html

I once entertained the idea of starting a "Sarah Palin Rumors" website, at the time that some really wild rumors were floating around (like doubts about Trig's parentage). My theory was, as stated in an email to some friends, "Sarah's allies can make up better - and funnier - scandals about her than the saliva-drenched left can." Some of the ideas:

- Sarah Palin once tried to force-feed a diabetic a candy cane.

- Sarah Palin did not join the Alaska Independence Party. She is, however, a founding member of the Yukon Annexation Party.

- The Palin home is completely carpeted in polar bear fur.

- The HAARP conspiracy theories are all true. The fact that HAARP is located in Sarah Palin's home state is not a coincidence...

It seems that saliva-drenched McCainiac rumors are weirder than mine.

Hmmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

1. "Well no, but Rand said that she was. Of course, that does not mean that absolutely everything that she says is libertarian, hence the question this time since she went both ways."

*shrug* so what if Rand thinks she is libertarian. There really isn't a set definition of libertarian that any two libertarians would agree on.

2. "First off I would ask William Jefferson of Louisiana to resign (and I hope that Sarah Palin agrees, regardless of the will of the people)."

i.e. Precisely what Gov Palin did vis a vis Stevens.

3. "Not nearly as many people asked Stevens to resign when he had merely been indicted."

But Gov Palin -did- in fact ask Stevens to resign -after- he was convicted. So in fact Gov Palin did -precisely- as you want and so all of this craptacular bullshit show you're putting is a complete waste of time.

4. "Maybe not, if a vote means that you shouldn't even ask people to resign. I remember, for instance, that people asked Clinton to resigned during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Did that request wrongly defy the will of the people?"

But as you admitted several times Gov Palin -did- in fact ask Stevens to resign.

And let me point out that if your standard is that a conviction invalidates the will of the people, as expressed by voting during an election, then there's a Democrat elected to the House and a former judge who was impeached from the bench.

So you think he should stay in office or what?

Because this bullshit doesn't impress me one single bit.

Hmmmmm.

"My personal suspicion is that she's still mulling over whether or not to run for his Senate seat in the special election, and wants to see how things go first. It would be seen as too forward for her to openly call for his resignation at this time, especially since it's pretty much a certainty that he's going to resign anyways."

IMO it would be a disaster for Gov Palin to go into the Senate. The problem with the Senate is that there is little accountability within the Senate, but all that accountability accrues until the election.

In other words as a Senator she would be pressured to vote in certain ways that won't be a liability up until the election cycle where they will become a timebomb.

Frankly I think she's much better off staying Gov of Alaska.

But Gov Palin -did- in fact ask Stevens to resign -after- he was convicted.

The difference is that I would ask William Jefferson to resign even though he hasn't yet been convicted. I think that his indictment is persuasive enough, maybe not automatically but certainly in this case. I'm not sure how Palin thought that the indictment charges against Stevens weren't persuasive.

Sure, to take the case of Representative Jefferson, a felony conviction would not automatically invalidate the will of the people, and obviously an indictment by itself doesn't carry that authority either. But that shouldn't stop anyone from merely asking a crook to resign. And not just asking but keeping the request on the table.

But as you admitted several times Gov Palin -did- in fact ask Stevens to resign.

Sort of, until she took it back. And we can't be sure that it's what Palin wanted to say either, because it was just a statement issued in her name during the campaign. Even at the time, when she spoke directly about it, she only said that Stevens should "do the right thing", whatever that was. And she's saying now that there are things that the campaign was doing for her and making her do that she didn't want. And of course the anonymous accusations from campaign workers speak to that too.

IMO it would be a disaster for Gov Palin to go into the Senate.

I certainly agree with you here even if I don't share your reasons.

Stevens was convicted in Federal court, so there is no contradiction here.

Is that right? So, you figure for Federal trials, they fly in jurors from Montana and Iowa or something? It wasn't Alaskans on that Federal jury?

Or are you Calhoun reborn, a radical state's rights guy, who thinks the Federal government is merely a creation of the state governments, and that as citizens we do not have any mixture of loyalties, both to the state and to the nation? Maybe you need to go back to 1824, the last time this attitude was popular, and argue with those folks?

That could also explain Palin's two different messages. When she ran for national office, she tried to show that she accepted the will and laws of the American people.

They're not different messages, Jim, they're complex messages reflecting the complex nature of human loyalty. Christ, if I asked you whether you were primarily loyal to your wife or to your first-born child, I should hope you have the mental capacity to reply well it depends and you know, that question isn't really very well thought out.

In the same sense, your question of to which constituency Governor Palin owes loyalty is the kind of overly-rigid categorizing to the point of pointlessness question that an Asperger's sufferer would pose. I'm reminded of all those computer programmer geeks at slashdot.org who just can't get their heads around the fact that human law and tradition doesn't work as precisely and rigidly as a C program.

It may seem a bit contradictory, but it shouldn't take a Vulcan mind meld to straighten it out.

A Vulcan is precisely the wrong person to straighten this out. You need a person with an appreciation for human complexity. A person with a superb appreciation for logical rules is only going to tie himself into knots.

Which is what you seem like here. You sound like Data the android from Star Trek trying to work out why humans do such apparently logically contradictory things. Maybe take a look at your own life, provided you have a normal one, and realize how difficult it is to nail down everything you do and say along some consistent lines of philosophy. Heck, I can look at what you post to TT and realize that it's not possible to nail you down to any particularly philosophy.

This is, after all, why philosophy as such is an avocational interest in human beings, and not a useful governing principle. Nobody goes through life (or a role as governing official) and, before he makes any major decision, consults his philosophical handbook and follow rigidly the principles laid down there.

Really, your continued attempt to argue the merits of a person on the same basis that you'd argue the merits of a machine -- whether it (or he) does exactly the same thing every time the circumstances are the same, and follows rigidly and predictably an underlying program -- is not likely to be successful among ordinary people. Among ideologues and obsessive-compulsives, maybe. But ordinary folks appreciate the truth in that old aphorism: Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

It wasn't Alaskans on that Federal jury?

That's right, it wasn't. The jury was drawn from the DC district.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/24/jury-picked-stevens-case-opening-arguments-set-thu/

They're not different messages, Jim, they're complex messages reflecting the complex nature of human loyalty.

Carl, this is just not as complex as the warp drive engines. It's as transparent as transparent aluminum. The lower 48 says that Stevens is a crook, but a lot of Alaskans still like him.

The lower 48 says that Stevens is a crook, but a lot of Alaskans still like him.

How do you know how many Alaskans like him? If I were an Alaskan Republican (and perhaps even if I were an Alaskan independent) I would have voted for him (unhappily, and wishing that he had been replaced in the primary) in order to prevent the Democrat from winning, and on the assumption that he's either going to be ejected from the Senate or resign, at which point he will be replaced by another Republican.

After all, in Missouri a few years ago, people elected a dead guy. It wasn't because they though he'd make a great Senator (though admittedly he wouldn't necessarily do worse than a lot of his less-metabolically-challenged colleagues).

How do you know how many Alaskans like him?

I'm not in a position to count them, but there are some clear reasons to say that, qualitatively, it's a lot.

First, because we should take Palin at her word. As she said, "Alaskans are grateful for his decades of public service." It's true that that was in the written statement which may not have been entirely to her liking, but that clause sounded sincere.

Palin also said that she no longer wanted to ask Stevens to resign because his re-election was the "will of the people". That conclusion wouldn't make any sense if Alaskans simply voted strategically. Palin might well be bending things some in her reading of the will of the people, but she no idiot on the question of popular opinion in Alaska. She surely did correctly describe many Alaskans.

Many Wasillans in particular. For instance here is a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily news published the day after Stevens was convicted:

I have watched with disdain the mockery of a trial against Ted Stevens. How is it that the government can make all the judicial errors they want and get away with it? The complaint is about a house that Ted owned and the Veco chairman used all the time. I don't think it is any of the government's business who Ted Stevens' friends are or what they do for him. Frankly, Alaskans should build a mansion for Ted Stevens and furnish it at no cost to him. If they did that, it still would not repay the good that he has done for Alaska.

No one in the history of this great state has done as much for Alaska and Alaskans as Ted Stevens has done. No one. -- Jim McFarlin, Wasilla

That is not the only letter that reads that way in the Anchorage Daily News. Not only were there other letters about standing up for their hero Ted Stevens, there were also letters on other days that likened him to Barry Bonds: Great career, past him prime, too bad he cheated. You should add to that a "Steven effect": In both pre-election polls and in the letters to the editor, people will be naturally reluctant to talk about their favorite guy right when he is convicted of a crime.

It's also not necessarily true that Stevens "will" be replaced by another Republican if he wins the election and then gets booted from the Senate. The rules in Alaska are to hold a special election, not to let Palin appoint his successor.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/letters/story/573858.html

but discussing one of Sarah Palin's central post-election statements is "underhanded and illogical"?

In my view, it's not "central". I really don't believe that Palin's words are sufficiently different, or the issue weighty enough to warrant attention.

Continuing on, my primary issue is just the obnoxious way you argue.

Except that it isn't an insincere concern. The anonymous criticisms of Palin's conduct in the campaign really and truly are unsatisfactory. I'm not necessarily concerned for Palin herself, if that's what you mean --- that depends on certain facts that no one has come forward with. But yes, it's a concern, and it's also true that the lack of explanations from the campaign make Palin look bad.

But your argument is not sincere. This's just a rhetorical tool to position the knife for yet another attack on a foe. Grant a minor point and plunge the knife in. You've done this so many times it's very cliched. In the current example, you telegraphed from the start of the very first sentence exactly what you were going to do.

This's just a rhetorical tool to position the knife for yet another attack on a foe. Grant a minor point and plunge the knife in.

"Plunge the knife" into a "foe"? Good grief, Karl, Palin isn't my enemy, and even if she were, none of this is a plot from a Stephen King novel. It's a clear and relevant point: In response to anonymous smears, don't argue in the alternative and don't act like you have something to hide. It would be different if any of this $150,000 shopping spree actually belonged in anyone's private closet. If it did, then it would be fine to act like you have something to hide; right to privacy and all that. But the whole point is that these clothes don't belong in Palin's private closet.

Again too, I'm not leaking anything or writing for the New York Times or anything like that. Maybe Rick Davis is "plunging the knife in", but I'm not. This is all public information and I'm mentioning it because it's relevant.

Maybe you mean to say that my comments are annoying because they're back-handed? First, nothing that I have said in this thread is as negative or back-handed as many things said about Obama in the posts and comments on this site --- you can look back at months of diverse condemnations. How come you're so much more upset now than then? Second, if a presidential campaign can't explain silk boxer shorts, maybe we're entitled to some back-handed comments.

As for the idea that Palin is my "foe", I would have less to say about her if she really were. No, she's a fun topic just because the perception gap about her is wider than Alaska. She is a lot less important than what is going on in Washington right now, and no one there is my personal "foe" either.

Jim, you've been doing this from the start and the more you do it, the more it annoys me. But since criticism doesn't seem to stick, I'll attempt to ignore your use of this trick in the future. Besides it appears to be your natural style (considering your more recent example).

Ban Harris. Let him get his own blog.

Hmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

"Sure, to take the case of Representative Jefferson, a felony conviction would not automatically invalidate the will of the people, and obviously an indictment by itself doesn't carry that authority either."

Ahhh now we're getting somewhere.

So does a felony conviction bar someone from running for office?

So does a felony conviction bar someone from running for office?

Well, in many states it bars people from voting. It's not quite logical to say that you have no right to vote because you're a convicted felon, but sure, you can still run for office.

Even so, I agree that not stripping away the democratic rights of criminals is the right legal direction. It invites attack to be a "criminal lover" who wants criminals to have the right to vote, but it's clearly right. Otherwise a society could put more and more people in prison, and mistreat them in prison, and the remaining voters might never see that as being against their interests.

On the other hand, Congress obviously should be allowed to expel one of its members in egregious circumstances. For instance, when Representative Preston Brooks nearly beat Senator Charles Sumner to death with his cane, Brooks should have been expelled from the House whether or not he was convicted of anything. Congress may come to a separate decision as to whether this or that criminal conviction is fair.

Anyway Stevens has expulsion coming if he doesn't resign, and it's not clear why he wasted everyone's time by even running for re-election.

Hmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

1. "Well, in many states it bars people from voting. It's not quite logical to say that you have no right to vote because you're a convicted felon, but sure, you can still run for office."

And there you go. I don't know of a state where a felony conviction is a bar from running for office. In fact I recollect one person, name escapes me, who was convicted, sent to prison and yet -still- ran for office.

From within prison.

Sooooooo.

If a felony conviction is no bar to running for office
-and- the voters elect said convicted felon to office
-then- a certain Governor doesn't have much justification for asking about a resignation then eh?

2. "Even so, I agree that not stripping away the democratic rights of criminals is the right legal direction."

Frankly you're reading way too much "liberal" in my points. I don't have a problem with stripping rights from convicted felons.

The only problem I have with felonies is that far too many relatively minor criminal acts are being reclassified as felonies.

3. "On the other hand, Congress obviously should be allowed to expel one of its members in egregious circumstances."

It does have that right to not seat someone that Congress opposes.

4. "Anyway Stevens has expulsion coming if he doesn't resign, and it's not clear why he wasted everyone's time by even running for re-election."

Heh. Don't be too certain.

A. It's to the Democrats -advantage- to have a convicted -Republican- felon in the Senate. A number of Democrats are in serious legal trouble over the mortgage mess and other legal problems. So it's entirely possible the Democrats, who have the majority, won't refuse to seat Stevens.

B. Even if the Democrats do refuse to seat Stevens all it'll mean is that a "clean", i.e. non-convicted, Republican is now going to take over that seat. Which neatly helps Republicans by taking a hot issue off the burner.

Hmmmm.

Oh yeah just remembered: James Traficant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Traficant

Hmmmm.

OMG! Look at that hairpiece!

Looks like a comatose badger on his head.

In fact I recollect one person, name escapes me, who was convicted, sent to prison and yet -still- ran for office.

There are have been several over the course of American history. You may be thinking of Jim Traficant, who served in the House for 17 years and then went to prison and ran as an Independent from his prison cell. He lost, but he did get 15% of the vote.

Traficant was convicted of taking campaign money for personal use. My question is, did that include silk boxer shorts?

> In fact I recollect one person, name escapes me, who was convicted, sent to prison and yet -still- ran for office.

Another was a Boston mayor, who won relection while in jail and served from there for a while.

As Jim Harris points out, it's happened before. The odd thing is that this time it's a Repub - the other cases were mostly Dems....

The odd thing is that this time it's a Repub - the other cases were mostly Dems....

This kind of wild tangent shows you how people are much more irritated by a comment that's off narrative than one that's off topic.

Anyway to address the point: I haven't seen a thorough statistical survey, but you could argue a connection between party ideologies and these extreme cases when a politician commits a crime but still wants to run for office.

On the Democratic side, there is a tendency towards blind complacency. Yes Rostenkowski (say) embezzled the post office, and yes it's bad, but hey, nobody's perfect and let's talk about policies instead.

On the Republican side, there is a tendency towards open defiance. That is, there is a tendency to say that the crime committed was actually a good thing. For instance, in Boca Raton, Republican challenger Allen West was admired and rose to minor national prominence because he tortured an Iraqi policeman. He was told to leave the Army or face court martial, but no matter, his supporters across the nation see it as a heroic act. He got a lot of out-of-state campaign contributions. (West lost to Ron Klein, but he did get 45% of the vote.)

Or look at the tone of the letter from Wasilla defending Ted Stevens. The guy doesn't say, Ted Stevens is a crook but let's forgive him. Instead, his argument is that after all that Stevens has done for the state, it's good that people bribed him, let's bribe him more. It's not clear that Stevens would have been convicted in Alaska.

Obviously when a faction of the public outright admires a criminal act, that makes prosecution both less likely and more difficult. If it is really true that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to run for office from prison, this may explain why.

Republican challenger Allen West was admired and rose to minor national prominence because he tortured an Iraqi policeman.

More hyperbole and lies from Jim Harris. What a shock. Guess he's just trying to write something related to the title of this post.

More hyperbole and lies from Jim Harris.

With all due respect, you should check the facts before you accuse people of lying. As explained and referenced in Wikipedia, West admitted in an Article 32 hearing that he assaulted a restrained Iraqi policeman in custody. It is also widely documented that he subjected the policeman, Yahiya Hamoodi, to a mock execution. Mock execution and assaulting a restrained detainee both fit the standard concept of torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(former_U.S._military_officer)

Guess he's just trying to write something related to the title of this post.

It's an example of the general pattern of belligerent admiration of certain criminal acts. That includes admiration of Ted Stevens, which Palin calls "the will of the people" and being "grateful for his decades of public service".

Mock execution and assaulting a restrained detainee both fit the standard concept of torture.

They don't fit a sane concept of it. The word torture has been so overused and overdefined as to be rendered meaningless.

They don't fit a sane concept of it.

We Americans have never had any trouble calling mock execution torture when it has been done to Americans. In 1991 there was a police torture case in Chicago that involved mock execution. No one then said, hey it's just hyperbole to call mock execution torture.

Mock execution is also listed among Saddam Hussein's acts of torture in Kuwait.

Even if mock execution weren't torture --- it is but let's say it wasn't --- it is clearly a Class A felony. Allen West is admired for committing a crime.

So any concern that you were taken in by "Martin Eisenstadt" a hoaxer not connected with the campaign, well you and the multiple layers of editors at the New Republic, (wait a tick, that's never happened before. . .)NewsWeak, (Gitmo, Koran flushing, among many examples et al.)Bloggers are nowhere as responsible; as the MSM.

Fox says "Eisenstadt" was not their source. In other words, there was a hoax, but the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the anonymous Palin rumors reported on Fox is a separate issue.

...if a presidential campaign can't explain silk boxer shorts...

a) Why should a presidential campaign have to explain what kind of underwear a member of the campaign is wearing?

b) Are you such a gullible fool that you really believe that a world champion snowmachine racer and professional commercial fisherman in Alaska would request that someone buy him silk boxer shorts, as opposed to the reality, which is likely that he would punch someone out if they accused him of desiring such apparel?

You don't have to answer the second question. We know the answer.

They don't fit a sane concept of it. The word torture has been so overused and overdefined as to be rendered meaningless.

An even clearer example: When the American Embassy hostages were released from Iran in 1980, the St. Petersburg Independent ran an AP article with the title: "Tales of Torture: Hostages Tell of Beatings, and Grim Games of Death".

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KOQLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pVgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6887,1963394

That's almost the same as what Allen West did to the Iraqi policeman, Yeyiha Hamoodi. He beat Hamoodi, he threatened to kill Hamoodi, and he staged a mock execution of Hamoodi.

When that article ran in the St. Petersburg Independent 28 years ago, no one in Florida said, whoa, it's just hyperbole and lies to call beatings, death threats, and mock execution torture. If it was torture when the Iranians did it, then it still was when Allen West did it. It's completely wrong to call it "hyperbole and lies" or to say that it's not a "sane concept" of torture. It's the standard American concept of torture.

And since I was accused of lying about this, it's a relief that both McCain and Obama are loyal to the traditional definition of torture. It's also a relief that Allen West, who has entirely the wrong concept of what's torture, didn't win his election.

So any concern that you were taken in by "Martin Eisenstadt" a hoaxer not connected with the campaign

I certainly wasn't taken in by Martin Eisenstadt or any other hoaxer. As I said at the beginning, the anonymous accusations against Palin are entirely unsatisfactory. But the only way for her to make these accusations go away is to come clean. She or someone else in the campaign needs to list what was bought at Neiman Marcus and say who bought it. She could at least say who showed her the clothes. She needs to name names. She is at best clueless at dispelling suspicions. She can repeat until she's blue that the issue is "irrelevant", but just saying so won't make it irrelevant.

Are you such a gullible fool that you really believe that a world champion snowmachine racer and professional commercial fisherman in Alaska would request that someone buy him silk boxer shorts, as opposed to the reality, which is likely that he would punch someone out if they accused him of desiring such apparel?

We don't need to speculate about any likely reality. All Todd Palin has to do is to state on the record that it's a lie that anyone bought any of the Palins silk boxer shorts with campaign money. And all the campaign has to do is publish a list of what clothes were bought for the Palins on their credit cards. That's all it would take.

After all, this is $150,000 in political donations. It's not chump change and it's also not the Palins' private business. It's completely wrong to invent answers on Todd Palin's behalf on the basis of "likely reality".

One of Sarah Palin's answers didn't help anything. She said that she spent the weekend sorting out clothes to return, and "that's the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear". $150,000 in campaign clothes shouldn't have any intersection with kids losing underwear. (But it does raise another theory, that the silk boxer shorts were actually for one of the kids rather than for Todd.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5127821.ece

So Palin did provide some answers in her interview with Greta van Susteren. Just like Alan Colmes, van Susteren is no juggernaut of intrepid journalism. But Palin's answers did provide some kind of information.

Unfortunately, the answers didn't sound all that truthful. Van Susteren asked her point blank who did all of this shopping, but Palin did not name any names. She said that she's still researching the question. It's not clear why it should take more than two weeks to do this research, and she still can't produce even one name.

Palin also said that the receipts prove that the clothes were purchased or ordered before she showed up at the convention. How do the receipts prove that? They are dated from September 10th to September 25th, but the convention was from September 1st to September 4th.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/gop-consultant-reimbursed-for-palin-shopping-spree/

I misattributed the comment about underwear to Sarah Palin. It actually came from her dad, Chuck Heath.

Rick Davis said, "I'm not sure she really understood what the parameters are". That cleared the air like a stink bomb. Then the comment from Chuck Heath was a whiff of laundry, and now Palin's new interview adds an odor of dead moose. She sounds dismissive, impatient, defensive; she cites receipts that don't support her case. She repeatedly blames "the RNC", but she doesn't name names. The rumors are just going to accumulate until either she or the campaign comes clean.

After all, this is $150,000 in political donations. It's not chump change and it's also not the Palins' private business.

Neither is it your business, unless you're an RNC donor. Is that why you're idiotically whining so much about underwear? How much did you donate? Have you asked for your money back?

Or do you just have some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder, and unhealthy interest in other mens' undergarments?

Again, that was a rhetorical question.

All Todd Palin has to do is to state on the record that it's a lie that anyone bought any of the Palins silk boxer shorts with campaign money. And all the campaign has to do is publish a list of what clothes were bought for the Palins on their credit cards. That's all it would take.

Bullshit. Absolute, utter bullshit. She's responding responsibly to all this crap by indicating she's not going to be dragged into the mud. The way countless others have done in the past. What frustrates you Jim is that she won't play your game. You're covering yourself in garbage and your targets won't cooperate by joining you. And the more you try the smellier you get. Sucks to be you.

Hmmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

"On the Democratic side, there is a tendency towards blind complacency. Yes Rostenkowski (say) embezzled the post office, and yes it's bad, but hey, nobody's perfect and let's talk about policies instead."

"On the Republican side, there is a tendency towards open defiance."

Yeah. This is just another example of bullshit Jim. You don't actually have any -proof- of this do you because you're pulling this out of your ass.

It's nice that you're making this ridiculous determination that shows how totally wonderful Democrats are even while they're embezzling while Republicans at heart are just total f--king bastards.

But you really don't think I'd let you get away with that do you?

Hmmmmm.

Frankly this nonsense over $150k in clothing is boring the hell out of me. Obama spends $5.1 =MILLION= dollars on a couple of Greek columns and a backdrop and that's fine but this is some incredible deal?

IMO I plan to ignore any comment, post or nonsense that includes this. From now on I plan to treat this as an extension of Godwin's Law.

Neither is it your business, unless you're an RNC donor.

That's just not necessarily true, Rand. First, remember why Jim Traficant went to prison: Federal corruption charges for taking campaign funds for personal use. If a big enough gap opens between Palin's explanations and the receipts, that's where the story could lead.

Second, suppose that it is all legal and no worse than her innocently wasting the money of her donors. Then it would still say a lot about what she is like as a stateswoman. After all, the Republicans had a lot to say about John Edwards' two $400 haircuts, and this story is 200 times as big as what Edwards did.

Third, what you said at the top is that you don't want to believe any of the smears. But just because a smear isn't public business, that isn't a reason to call it false.

Third, what you said at the top is that you don't want to believe any of the smears.

I didn't say that. Anyone can look at the top and see what I actually said, instead of your mendacious (as always) misinterpretation of it.

...just because a smear isn't public business, that isn't a reason to call it false.

No one said it was a reason to call it false, you illogical reading-comprehension-challenged troll.

And you still seem to be disturbingly obsessed with mens' underwear.

Second, suppose that it is all legal and no worse than her innocently wasting the money of her donors. Then it would still say a lot about what she is like as a stateswoman. After all, the Republicans had a lot to say about John Edwards' two $400 haircuts, and this story is 200 times as big as what Edwards did.

Let's consider these claims. How does this compare to typical clothing budgets for presidential candidates? At a glance, Obama was wearing suits that cost $1500 a pop (the article mentions that he bought five more of them, which is $7500, if bought at retail, right there). That's more than 9 on the Edwards scale right there.

My take is that a presidential level wardrobe from scratch for a woman with the family size (seven members) Palin has is probably on the order of what was spent. I see no indication of frivilous spending (aside from that oh so damning pair of silk boxers!).

Second, why is this perceived as Palin rather than McCain wasting the money? She's the VP candidate and unlikely to have that kind of control over finances.

Third, she ran for vice president. She wore the clothes while campaigning. I don't see how anyone can spin the purchases as illegal even if they are kept afterwards.

Finally, to consider the personal use angle a bit closer, I don't see that these clothes are that valuable to her. She didn't need them while running for governor. Can't say how she'd have used them personally (assuming she would have originally been allowed to keep the clothes).

Karl, first a meta-remark. It's fine to say that my comments irritate you and that you want to ignore them. De gustibus non est disputandum. It's also fine to respond to my comments. I really don't mind either way. But what's the point in bouncing back and forth?

Obama was wearing suits that cost $1500 a pop (the article mentions that he bought five more of them, which is $7500, if bought at retail, right there). That's more than 9 on the Edwards scale right there.

You're right that that's what it would be if Obama had bought those suits with campaign contributions. But since he spent his own money, he can buy whatever he pleases. He could even buy silk boxer shorts, it would just be his private business. It was also fine when Cindy McCain wore $280,000 earrings, even though it was more than Palin's entire wardrobe just for two rocks. At the very least all of it is entirely ethical, whether or not maybe some of it is extravagant or vain.

Campaign contributions are other people's money and then it's an entirely different story. Remember the conservative/libertarian argument in favor of laissez faire campaign financing, that it's a form of free speech. That was never supposed to be just, money talks, therefore bribery is protected speech.

My take is that a presidential level wardrobe from scratch for a woman with the family size

For just two months? Why would she need a power designer closet just for that? After all, once the scandal hit she started wearing a pink number which is her own property, and guess what, it looks fine. After all, the woman is already governor of a state. If she has plenty of clothes to serve as governor for 18 months, then she has plenty to campaign for two months.

Besides, there are other women in high places in Washington and foreign capitals and most of them aren't wearing red hot candy pumps or killer black leather boots. Even if she did need shoes like that, they don't have to be designer brand. Look at the photos. She was dressed for the Oscars, not for the White House.

I see no indication of frivolous spending (aside from that oh so damning pair of silk boxers!).

The boxer shorts would contradict the alleged purpose of these clothes.

Second, why is this perceived as Palin rather than McCain wasting the money?

Because she can't give a straight story. She says, for instance, that the RNC ordered all of the clothes before she show up in Minneapolis, and that the receipts show it. But the receipts don't show it.

But in the large you're right, neither McCain nor Palin has come clean on this story. We have unaccountable anonymous accusations on one side and unaccountable failed explanations on the other side. It makes Palin look bad, but maybe that's wrong. Maybe Palin wasn't actually buying herself expensive clothes with campaign money, maybe she's just really bad at explaining what happened.

I don't see how anyone can spin the purchases as illegal even if they are kept afterwards.

In the worst case, if she calculated that her VP nomination was her first big chance to raid Neiman Marcus and Saks for her personal benefit, then yes that would be illegal. If your employer gives you an expense card for clothing, don't use it at Victoria's Secret.

I don't see that these clothes are that valuable to her.

I've been to Saks and it's always full of women. These clothes are valuable to them just as a Corvette would be valuable to me.

Karl, first a meta-remark. It's fine to say that my comments irritate you and that you want to ignore them. De gustibus non est disputandum. It's also fine to respond to my comments. I really don't mind either way. But what's the point in bouncing back and forth?

I've decided to try to ignore your obnoxious side. After all, there are zillions of internet posters each with their own annoying quirks. I just need to grow a thicker skin.

But since he spent his own money, he can buy whatever he pleases.

If that's true, then you are correct. Still it indicates to me that a wardrobe for a candidate is quite expensive even if the candidate buys the clothes themselves.

For just two months? Why would she need a power designer closet just for that?

Vice president candidate. Look the part, high stakes, all that. Having said that, I see claims that she was asked to buy six sets of clothes and a stylist for $20,000 to $25,000. If true, she overspent by a large multiple (though I doubt that the money was intended to cover everything that the $150,000 or more covered).

You know, looking deeper into this, it's starting to smell pretty funny to me. But I want to see more than anonymous accusations and contextless summaries of the receipt numbers (eg, how many suits were bought at Saks, when were these clothes bought, was there poor communication, etc). Hard to believe that Palin would make a huge mistake like that and the McCain campaign would let it grow. But if it did happen, hard evidence will come out.

The parties spend big bucks on campaign PR, and clothing is part of that package. It wouldn't surprise me if campaign donations paid for half the wardrobes of Congress.

I do think the RNC went overboard, and I suspect paranoia. "OMFG, McCain picked this redneck who's probably never seen the interior of a Saks or Macy's, much less a Neiman Marcus! We've got to do something to polish her up!" Palin and family could have been dressed just as smartly as snob-appeal labels without the snob-appeal prices. I'm right now wearing a wrinkle-free dress shirt purchased for less than $20 from Wal-Mart - it looks just as good as any dress shirt I've seen on the campaign trail.

The RNC should have realized that the Dems and the press and others watch the Republicans as intently as a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water (hat tip to H. G. Wells. It should have known that the price tag would have been used against the campaign - with a little imagination this could have been prevented.

Sometimes I think the Beltway is more isolated from the real world than McCain's tiger cage in Hanoi.

On second thought...no "sometimes" about it.

I'll take McCain's fellow Vietnam prisoners over his fellow Senators any day.