Discrimination/Inequality
UPDATE: I misread the dates on the articles I read and thought the Palin/money thing happened a week ago and no one had said a word. They came out today, however. Go me.
Remember when John Edwards had that epic haircut that cost 400$? And everyone gave him all kinds of hell? The media crucified him for such an expenditure? Yeah, it was pretty ridic. And you know what? They were probably right to do it. A 400$ haircut is a little absurd. Is there such a striking difference between his haircut and the one my local guy could give me? Hell, all he needed was some scissors and some hairspray - that could have done the same thing. So it was probably pretty stupid to go that crazy. But guess what?
Since Governor Palin was selected as McCain's VP candidate, the RNC has spent 150,000 dollars on clothes, makeup, etc. for her and her family. And guess what?
The media hasn't said A WORD.
What the hell? Reverse discrimination: you pile up the shit on John Edwards, but when a woman does it, nothing? That's real nice, media. Way to go. Here's the official release:
"The political website www.politico.com reported Tuesday night that the Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 for clothes, accessories, cosmetics and hair-styling for Palin and her family since August. According to RNC financial disclosure records, the amount includes a bill of more than $75,000 from Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in early September, as well as bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling more than $49,000."
And they checked Obama's campaign as well:
"Politico reported that a review of similar records for the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee turned up no spending similar to the amount spent on Palin and her family."
So we're certain this isn't a lie; to further add credibility that they spent such an exorbitant amount, the McCain campaign commented on it, implicitly acknowledging the expenditures:
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokesperson Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
Did the Republicans use this language and argument when commenting on John Edwards haircut? Nope. Gotta love it.
Read more...
Remember when John Edwards had that epic haircut that cost 400$? And everyone gave him all kinds of hell? The media crucified him for such an expenditure? Yeah, it was pretty ridic. And you know what? They were probably right to do it. A 400$ haircut is a little absurd. Is there such a striking difference between his haircut and the one my local guy could give me? Hell, all he needed was some scissors and some hairspray - that could have done the same thing. So it was probably pretty stupid to go that crazy. But guess what?
Since Governor Palin was selected as McCain's VP candidate, the RNC has spent 150,000 dollars on clothes, makeup, etc. for her and her family. And guess what?
The media hasn't said A WORD.
What the hell? Reverse discrimination: you pile up the shit on John Edwards, but when a woman does it, nothing? That's real nice, media. Way to go. Here's the official release:
"The political website www.politico.com reported Tuesday night that the Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 for clothes, accessories, cosmetics and hair-styling for Palin and her family since August. According to RNC financial disclosure records, the amount includes a bill of more than $75,000 from Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in early September, as well as bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling more than $49,000."
And they checked Obama's campaign as well:
"Politico reported that a review of similar records for the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee turned up no spending similar to the amount spent on Palin and her family."
So we're certain this isn't a lie; to further add credibility that they spent such an exorbitant amount, the McCain campaign commented on it, implicitly acknowledging the expenditures:
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokesperson Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
Did the Republicans use this language and argument when commenting on John Edwards haircut? Nope. Gotta love it.
