Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 23, 2008

THE OTHER WARDROBE MYSTERY.... In all sincerity, I had no intention of returning to the subject of Sarah Palin's $150,000 campaign wardrobe, but there's been one unexpected twist.

Up until now, the question has been, "Why did the RNC spend so much money on clothing and accessories?" This afternoon, a report from the New York Times generated a new question: "Why don't the numbers add up?"

Some of the fashion experts consulted Wednesday, for instance, about the $150,000 in purchases that appeared on Federal Election Commission records were puzzled by where all of that money had gone, given what they had seen of Ms. Palin's wardrobe.

Consider also the $4,902.45 charge at Atelier New York, a high-end men's store, presumably for Ms. Palin's husband, Todd, the famous First Dude.

Karlo Steel, an owner there, said he had gone through the store's receipts for September, twice, and found no sales that matched that amount, nor any combination of sales that added up to the total. Because the store carries aggressively directional men's wear, he caters to a small clientele and knows most of his customers by name, as well as the history of their purchases.... "We have no recollection of that sale and no idea what they are talking about," Mr. Steel said.

Similarly, the RNC records show a charge of $98 at a high-end children's boutique in Minneapolis, but after going through their receipts, the store owners found no record of the sale.

And here I thought the story was odd enough before.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I can't wait to see all this unfolding, day after day, on Drudge .... ; -)

Posted by: Neil B on October 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

I really would love to see Mr. & Mrs. Palin do the perp walk.

Posted by: Saint Zak on October 23, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Slush fund? Prepurchasing the booze to drown their election-night woes?

Or something more nefarious...paying people to rat-fuck the election?

Posted by: Matt In Eugene on October 23, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Way to stick to the important issues that are influencing our lives.

Not.

Posted by: The Truthinator on October 23, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Suits for Norm Coleman???

Posted by: bkmn on October 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Huh? what on earth is 'aggressively directional' men's wear? (at the risk of sounding as dim as a republican candidate)

And what does this mean? They've faked the invoices and pocketed the cash?

Posted by: firefall on October 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Will any of this get 1/100th the play of Ayers? Or will it get the same amount as the Troopergate report?

Posted by: John McCain: Worse than Bush on October 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Quick correction. The children's botique in Minneapolis has record of the sale. It included the outfit Trig wore the night of Palin's acceptance speech.

Posted by: Jennifer on October 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Signing bonus!

Posted by: coldhotel on October 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, and the saga continues. Methinks something is smelly in Denmark,,,My guess is that Palinaroundwithterrorists and family did get some neato duds but the discrepancies are due to the lining of the pockets of that sleaze who also probably did the same ("purchased" clothes) for Coleman in Minnihaha.

My guess is that he used the extra money to place a bet against McAce and Palinaroundwithterrorists to lose the election.What fun...

Posted by: stevio on October 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

I honestly had the same thought, since it simply does not take nearly that amount to change one's wardrobe--it takes maybe $10,000 for that sort of transformation and maybe another ten grand for hair and make-up tops--that still leaves about $130,000.

Posted by: on October 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

what on earth is 'aggressively directional' men's wear? (at the risk of sounding as dim as a republican candidate)

I think that means it's gay.....

Posted by: Stefan on October 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

The buyers probably padded the bill with personal items from other stores. Stupid, but typical. And judging by the RNC and campaign reaction, they don't care. Lots of money sloshing around a campaign. When they need something now, cost goes out the window.

Posted by: Todd on October 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Remember that the person who actually put in for reimbursement for this stuff is Jeff Larson, not Palin.

Posted by: Buckethead on October 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of Ms. Palin's taste in fashion, check out this link at Brad DeLong's joint, showing her with a an interesting scarf. I think maybe they're supposed to be horses, but dig the picture and the quote:


Stumper : Sarah Palin Displays the Latest in Donkey Fashion: Photo by Max Whittaker/Getty Images

Spotted at a Palin event in Reno, Nev., Oct. 21. Yes, the scarf says, "Vote." And yes, those appear to be donkeys. A sign? Your thoughts, below

October 22, 2008 at 09:10 PM in Politics, Sorting: Front Page, Sorting: Pieces of the Occasion

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/ummm-no.html?cid=136108323#comment-136108323
or http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/106400/34862865

Get a kick out of the "Eohippus" comments.

Posted by: Neil B on October 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Is it possible that whomever procured the items for the Sarah and her family, committed fraud when
that person billed the RNC for reimbursement?

Posted by: HARRY VERBERNE on October 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

No one could question the Palins' trailer trash credentials if they stole the money.

In fact, if they scammed the McCain campaign I'd have a weird kind of respect for them.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on October 23, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

sarah palin is a maverick. she has her own math.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on October 23, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

"aggressively directional" = Eurotrash chic

Posted by: genome on October 23, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

This is just weird.

I'm assuming that this Larson fellow simply over-charged the Republicans for his work buying clothes for Palins. Which actually isn't a big story in the slightest.

So why didn't the campaign come out right away and say that they were over-billed? Instead they let a REALLY damaging story linger for a day, one that undercuts pretty much the VPs entire appeal.

I don't get it, it's just odd.

Posted by: neilt on October 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

You wouldn't be suggesting that Republicans are incompetent!? Why that would be...outrageous!

Posted by: Capt Kirk on October 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Sarah Palin isn't bright enough to pull off this kind of scam. She took was was given her and Jeff Larson took the cash, that's my guess.

Posted by: Curmudgeon on October 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

You wouldn't be suggesting that Republicans are incompetent!? Why that would be...outrageous!
Posted by: Capt Kirk on October 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM

No. It's more likely that they are liars, and using the high end purchases as cover for using the cash somewhere else. Like say, putting it in a pocket. Maybe it's compensation for Sarah so she can turn around and pay taxes on the 'income' when it is apparent that she really has no plan to donate anything to charity after Nov 4, after all.

Posted by: jcricket on October 23, 2008 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

$4,902.45 at Atelier...

Maybe it is $902.45 for the clothes and $4,000 for the Jack who went to pick them up.

Posted by: david s on October 23, 2008 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

They are using the same "deregulated" accounting used Iraq. I wonder if the money was delivered on pallets.

Posted by: Danp on October 23, 2008 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ruth Marcus in the Post this morning was on to this. She couldn't figure out how to spend that much money, and her husband said she's good at it. Pretty funny article.

Posted by: Scott F. on October 23, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

A payoff to Sarah in case they lose, maybe?

Posted by: on October 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Another aspect of the whole thing is found in this part of the NYT story:

The F.E.C. records showed a “Lisa L. Kine” was reimbursed for more than $2,000 in charges, including those made at Pacifier, as well as others at Macy’s, the Gap, Steinlauf & Stoller, a sewing supply store in New York, and Oshman Brothers, for “tailoring supplies.” The New York address listed traces to Lisa Kline, not Kine. Could this be the mystery stylist for Ms. Palin?

Some blogs jumped to the conclusion that this must be Lisa Kline, the owner of several trendy boutiques in Los Angeles often frequented by celebrities, including Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

The blog, daddytypes.com, fueled the speculation by e-mailing the Witthuhns a video of Ms. Kline, and Mr. Witthuhn said he was “pretty sure it’s her! CRAZY!!!

So the RNC is hiring a personal stylist for Caribou Barbie who also has as her clients Paris Hilton and Britney Spears...hmmm?

Now I suppose if you bring this up and start making noises about "celebrity" and "elitist", the McCainiacs will cry foul and complain that Democrats are making mountains out of molehills and none of this means anything. But when they are making the noises - based on a whole lot less - everyone is supposed to be concerned about Obama's celebrity and elitism.

So they really do think that the electorate, and especially their base, is that stupid. And that is the definition of elitism.

Posted by: majun on October 23, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

could be they got ratfucked by Rove.

Posted by: grinning cat on October 23, 2008 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Well, my guess is even more scurrilous than y'all's... :)

I had been puzzled by how little difference there was between the clothes she had "before" and "after (thanks to whoever posted that link, earlier in the day). Same predominance of red and black, same sexy shoes, same kind of jacket which cuts off at kidney level (worst possible place if your can is even half an inch larger than that of the skinniest model, but it does emphasize the "Mother Earth" abundance of hips)... But, at the time, I just assumed that making a sow's ear into a silk purse was more difficult than just putting lipstick on a pig.

But now, that there seem to be discrepancies in the sums... My guess is she's wearing mostly her own old duds, they got her a few new rags and accessories for maybe 10K, and Larson and Palin split the difference, pocketing 70K each. Nobody would notice, because Palin's clothes scream "cheap sex" and most women in the campaign probably just avert their eyes when being near her.

Posted by: exlibra on October 23, 2008 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

I think that means it's gay.....

What?

Posted by: miwome on October 23, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Not being particularly known as a slave to fashion (just ask the kids) the detail that the receipts don't add up is troubling. As far as putting a whole lot of stock in Mr Steel's denial, please remember that discretion is a very key detail for his clientele, and he'd have to be under oath to tells us for real.

If it is one thing we do know about the GOP, they do not release details like this unless they're forced to, and it is an explanation that is the best possible. So, examining the notes above, it seems to be a slush fund of some kind. That then begs the question about what it is for. It also needs to be declared as income by the Palins, like the AK-funded trips for the family members.

It is entirely possible that Sarahcuda will be in jail for tax evasion when 2012 rolls around at this rate.

As long as "agressively directional" doesn't include rugby shirts, I'll be safe from fashionitis, thank God.

Posted by: rugger0 on October 23, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans stealing campaign funds from each other? Why does that sound familiar?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on October 23, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK


******************************************
150 grand is simply an OBSCENE amount of money to spend on clothes for a small town 'reformer' hockey mom like Sarah Palin. Maybe she threw in some botox there.
******************************************
Hmm..What pray tell has Palin truly 'Reformed' anyway? Maybe she's reformed our sense of dignity and respect for one another.
*****************************************

Posted by: iseerussiafromyhouse on October 23, 2008 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

OK, so Atelier NY is right around the corner from me - went over - believe me, there is no way Todd is wearing this stuff - not that's it's "gay" (whatever that means), but it sure as hell is "aggressively directional" is a way that would drive the base absolutely nuts

If you don't live here, go to the website and click on the "gallery" link....

Posted by: fatbear on October 23, 2008 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

but it sure as hell is "aggressively directional" is a way

should be

but it sure as hell is "aggressively directional" in a way

Posted by: fatbear on October 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

What on earth is with these people? It's like peeling an onion; every time we find out something new that should be unflattering and problematic enough on its own, it turns out to have another weird layer. Her scandals have scandals. I can only conclude that she's simply too dumb to keep even her small improprieties private, or to do much of anything other than recite talking points.

If Republicans want to believe she's going to be their party's savior, they can go right ahead. Having Democrats in power for eight years instead of four would be really nice.

Posted by: Mike B. on October 23, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's a variation on an old accounting trick: instead of laundering money, they're tailoring it.

Posted by: Henry on October 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Why is there so much effort put into finding out how this money was spent? Present receipts that add up to $150,000 and show to which "charities" the clothing has already been designated. Watch for some homless woman standing on the corner, holding her Gucci Bag to receive donations. Her children will be wearing Willow and the other ones' hand-me-downs. Stop the speculation and just wait for the disclosures, which, I am sure, are immediately forthcoming!!!

peace,
st john

Posted by: st john on October 23, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's illegal to use campaign contributions to buy clothes for a candidate. This is because of a law sponsored by John McCain.

I think this is the reason why the RNC is putting out the line that they always intended to give the clothes to charity. Their lawyers might have suggested that they make this claim to keep Gov. Palin from being prosecuted. This way they can say that the clothes aren't for her, she just gets to wear them during the campaign.

Of course, there's a problem if they also bought clothes for the Dude and the kids.

Posted by: Joe Buck on October 23, 2008 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Aggressively directional means, I *think*, that it is "artistic" or "experimental" fashion, i.e. not ready-to-wear, i.e. not something that a politician's family is ever going to wear.

Posted by: jeebus on October 23, 2008 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Doesn't add up is an understatement.
$150K for clothes? Really? Try to imagine how you would spend that much money, even if price wasn't a consideration.
Has anyone asked N-M or Saks or Macy's about the details of the purchases?

Posted by: GVC on October 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

If the average clothing item - lets say one shirt or a pair of slacks - cost $300, that means they purchased 500 individual clothing items.

Maybe one "outfit" for $1,000. That would be 150 outfits.

All this for a 70+ day campaign?

I'd love to see the dry cleaning bill.

Liars AND crooks

Posted by: rick on October 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

All right, to be fair, Obama wears $1500 suits (which he buys himself), and women in public life get scrutinized far more carefully than men do. The standard for women on TV in particular is "never wear the same thing twice." (Campbell Brown made these points in a piece she did saying that all this wardrobe analysis is sexist, and that, heaven knows, there's plenty of actual substantive policy stuff on which to go after Palin. She does have a point.) A complete woman's outfit with suit, blouse, tailoring and accessories could **easily** run $2500 (women's clothing is both pricier and more cheaply made than comparable men's clothing, and tailoring is not included in the price as it is for men); multiply that by 60 days and you have your $150k.

Now, all of that said, I will admit that I think I've seen her wear the same thing twice (it would go with the frugal image), and also that her clothing doesn't look to me like it should cost that much (I speak as a veteran shopaholic). When you need it this minute you can't afford to shop around, but even so those jackets shouldn't run her more than $400 or so apiece, and even that's assuming that she bought them at an astronomical markup and paid for tailoring. (Again to be fair, she might need to have her suits tailored. Another thing about women's off-the-rack suits is that 1) they rarely fit in both the waist and the hips: if the waist fits, they won't go over the hips, and if the hips fit, the waist gaps and sags; 2) there is often no room in the jacket for boobage. Ask me how I know all this.) Tailoring aside, though, you can absolutely get that quality clothing at Loehmann's for $200 per suit or so. (Maybe she never heard of Loehmann's?)

Posted by: Lucia on October 23, 2008 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

To follow the money will likely provide the "October Surprise" being talked about. When you consider the credit card used and the individual involved it will , or should, make it easier to do so. Smacks of "under the table money" to me.

Posted by: fillphil on October 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

I could spend $150,000 on clothing, no problem. $3500 for a bespoke suit. $500 for a bespoke shirt. $250 for an Hermes tie. $550 for shoes. let's add $150 for underwear and socks. figure you need 20. plus, as a male, you need a fancy tuxedo (5 grand) a couple of $1k cufflinks, and perhaps a patek phillipe. boom, no problem.

but that's really a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

Posted by: northzax on October 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

I was expecting a couple of Armani suits for the First Dude. I guess not. There is not a chance in the world he would wear any of this. This is just too rich. This may or may not be a big deal but it is going to dominate the news cycle for a pretty long time. I just love the Paris Hilton connection.

Posted by: Nat on October 23, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

$95,000 for platinum snowshoes?

Posted by: Chris on October 23, 2008 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

So what happens *if* McCain/Palin actually win? Do tax payers have to pony up another $150K to outfit the VP once her current wardrobe is donated to charity?

Posted by: ColoLC on October 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I wrote a comment to the WaPo chat this morning musing that between the RNC's penchant for funny accounting and the guy who they sent on the shopping errand's lax ethics as a robocaller that there would probably be some skimming. The comment wasn't answered at the WaPo, but I feel pretty good about bringing it up!

Posted by: flounder on October 23, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree strongly with those who say 'why aren't we talking about the real issues?.'

Personally, I hope the McCain-Palin-Saks campaign is consumed with such trivia from now to election day.

Posted by: Rapid Eddie on October 23, 2008 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Consider also the $4,902.45 charge at Atelier New York, a high-end men's store, presumably for Ms. Palin's husband, Todd, the famous First Dude.

Possibly, even probably. But why stop there? There's a "dude-in-law" in the wings. (Levi.) Given his interests/inclinations, I doubt that fitting rooms are among his favorite haunts. Getting married in a hockey jersey just wouldn't do.

Posted by: Glen on October 23, 2008 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe they're trying to hide the payments to the travelling medical staff who have to drain McCain's face every few days?

Posted by: G.Kerby on October 23, 2008 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

So what happens *if* McCain/Palin actually win? Do tax payers have to pony up another $150K to outfit the VP once her current wardrobe is donated to charity?

Posted by: ColoLC on October 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I believe that once it goes to charity, they might just come back to you to get the next $150,000. The tax payers did not pay for the clothes, but they did pay for the derelicts that work with ACORN. OMG, can you believe that Woman at the Big O, rally. If I were a tax payer I would be so mad. Maybe Sarah should donate her clothes to that woman. The change that Obama would give her in a presidency of his, she will need all of the donates that she can get.
Good job, I believe that we should focas on these real issues. Also, do you have any idea how long that woman, Jane Valez-Mitchell is going to be on with her ISSUES. I do believe that she has gone back to being a full fledged alcholic!

Posted by: rlb on October 23, 2008 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Cost-plus accounting

Posted by: angelos on October 23, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Unless someone produces detailed receipts, I suspect that no one spent that kind of money on clothing. My guess is that the consultant billed the campaign for those amounts and then when the campaign doesn't pay up, they will write this up as a business loss.

Posted by: katlin on October 23, 2008 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff Larson! You-betcha! I'm sure it wouldn't bother him to rip off the RNC for $130,000.

Posted by: Jean on October 23, 2008 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get why this is just supposed to be a speed bump.

This was an authentic Marie Antoinette moment, folks. Sort of an "accessorizing while Rome burns, and, say, shouldn't they be eating cake?"

If ever there were an example of the mentality of the McCains (who were flush enough to have paid for it themselves, since it would seem apparent that this was because Palin and Cindy McCain would have to share the stage with Mrs. McCain's four and five figure ensembles), t'would seem to be this.

After all, rather than pony up themselves, they allowed the poor SOBs who donated to the RNC foot the bill. Welfare for the wealthy. That's the GOP way.

Main Street "gets" it. Why behave as though it were trivial?

Posted by: Hart Williams on October 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody would notice, because Palin's clothes scream "cheap sex" and most women in the campaign probably just avert their eyes when being near her.Posted by: exlibra

You need to come around here more often. You haven't been posting as much, and I miss zingers like this.

Posted by: Jeff II on October 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why didn't Governor Palin buy her clothes in "real America" if she thinks "real America" is so great?

It's apparently OK in her book to hobnob with midtown NY fashionistas one day and the next day tell Virginians that New Yorkers don't measure up to her patriotic standards -- while dressed in her NY finest.

What a tactless boor.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on October 23, 2008 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Good job, I believe that we should focas on these real issues. Also, do you have any idea how long that woman, Jane Valez-Mitchell is going to be on with her ISSUES. I do believe that she has gone back to being a full fledged alcholic!

You do seem to have some familiarity with that state, I'll give you that.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on October 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Again, more of the same from Palin and company. While spending $150,000 of "our money" on her new look--did she ever ask herself, what would Joe the plumber do?

WWJD?

Vote O in 08!

Posted by: Laura on October 24, 2008 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

You need to come around here more often. You haven't been posting as much, and I miss zingers like this. -- Jeff II, @ 22:54

Thanks. Am doing my best but it's been working rather than yakking these last couple of weeks and likely to remain so till Nov.5/. Cooking for the phone-bankers and door-to-door knockers. (I will *not* inflict my accent on innocents). Free Clinic (I volunteered for once a month but ended up going 5 times a month). Family descending every weekend (Virginia is very pretty this time of year). Checking umpteen blogs for shreds of hope and sustenance. E-mailing people "ammunition" (ie arguments) when they're assailed by the Repubs and don't know how to sass back. And I still have vestiges of life beyond politics...

I'll be back in full flight Nov 5 or 6 (if we win)

Posted by: exlibra on October 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Loved the link to Atelier. Man o man, can you imagine Todd wearing that stuff?

Anyhow, I got a laugh out of what is supposed to be trendy! I am soooo behind the times... who knew? ;-)

As for who gets the money, who knows. I'm sure there were a lot of people putting out their hands hoping for some extra.

This is how McCain/Palin are going to clean up Washington?

It is pretty funny, actually.

Posted by: clem2 on October 24, 2008 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINK

No mystery - the Republican Party is the largest organized crime operation in history and needs to be shut down under the RICO statutes.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM | PERMALINK

CAMPAIGN DRESSING

Big issue: McCain campaign spent $150,000 on clothes for VP nominee Sarah Palin, purchased at high end stores. Big deal. How does this differ from buying campaign signs, or installing Greek style columns? On the one hand, I'm glad to have the McCain campaign impeded by a phony issue. However, distractions such as this and the William Ayres terrorist implication and the ACORN foolishness have no place in in serious campaigns.

And, in this case, buying the clothes for Palin is clearly relevant and proper since she is mainly a campaign decoration.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Posted by: altara on October 24, 2008 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

I was confused when I first read about the bill from Atelier. I've never seen him (or could imagine him) wearing anything even remotely similar to what they sell.

And I've seen her in the same outfit more than once. That doesn't suggest a $150,000 shopping spree.

Something is very fishy, indeed. After this election I say the Palins are in for some serious trouble over a number of things. I'm picturing her in a prison frock, and I'm picturing him in the shower. It would be a fitting end.

Posted by: Saint Zak on October 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM | PERMALINK

After this election I say the Palins are in for some serious trouble over a number of things.

Eh. I still doubt that this is the Palins. I think the speculation that Larison was screwing over the RNC is probably the correct one - he probably spent 75K on the family and billed the RNC for double, making up fake totals. The Palins probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a $2,000 dress and a $4,000 dress (I certainly couldn't - I would have figured that a lot of her clothes came "off the rack" at Macy's given that they look like things my wife would buy when she needs something nice.).

Given the revelation that the guy that the RNC was paying to register voters was scamming them by slamming people who weren't Republicans, I don't think the RNC vets their contractors very well. They all seem to be cheats and crooks.

Posted by: NonyNony on October 24, 2008 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

The appropriate analogy here is "The Producers." It is worth noting that the GOP has done this before. They run token candidates in races against entrenched Dems, solicit donations, and GOP consultants charge for some overpriced campaign support. Its a profitable revenue stream for the GOP consultants. Josh Marshall has documented this phenomenon. There are probably many such opportunities in a national campaign and nobody really checks on things after the fact.

Remember how badly McCain burned through cash his first time out during the primary season. This is the way they operate.

Posted by: rk on October 24, 2008 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Sarah should not be blamed for not understanding the costs - When she entered Nieman-Marcus with her personal buyer, she was overheard saying, "Only in America, could Sam Walton have pulled this off".

Posted by: berttheclock on October 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Palin is the total fraud, nothing real there!
James J. Wilson

Posted by: James J. Wilson on October 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Caribou Barbie herself said she has most of her new clothes still in the storage area of the campaign bus.

Posted by: on October 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

IS THERE MORE TO THIS STORY ?

Don't know if y'all have already covered this . . . but I was just reading the Schedule F list of expenditures which included the wardrobe expenses and which can be found here:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00003418/373483/sf


Go about 7/8ths of the way down this long document . . .

Why was "Lisa L. Kine" was paid $512.92 and then, right under that entry, Macy's in Minneapolis was ALSO paid $512.92 ?

Same thing for two $98.00 payments -- one made to Kine and another to Gavidae Pacifier.

Same thing for two $725.00 payments -- one made to Kine and another to Delancy Car Service in New York.

All these payments were made the same day, 9/25.

Am I just mis-reading this document?

Or did this "Lisa L. Kine" get re-imbursed for items for which the Republicans also directly paid the merchants?

Also: has the real identity of "Lisa L. Kine" actually ever been ascertained?

Last time I tuned into the Wardrobe Wars, she was NOT the Lisa Kline who has a boutique in Beverly Hills . . .

Posted by: Add_Dress_2_the_Nation on October 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

IS THERE MORE TO THIS STORY ?

Don't know if y'all have already covered this . . . but I was just reading the Schedule F list of expenditures which included the wardrobe expenses and which can be found here:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00003418/373483/sf


Go about 7/8ths of the way down this long document . . .

Why was "Lisa L. Kine" was paid $512.92 and then, right under that entry, Macy's in Minneapolis was ALSO paid $512.92 ?

Same thing for two $98.00 payments -- one made to Kine and another to Gavidae Pacifier.

Same thing for two $725.00 payments -- one made to Kine and another to Delancy Car Service in New York.

All these payments were made the same day, 9/25.

Am I just mis-reading this document?

Or did this "Lisa L. Kine" get re-imbursed for items for which the Republicans also directly paid the merchants?

Also: has the real identity of "Lisa L. Kine" actually ever been ascertained?

Last time I tuned into the Wardrobe Wars, she was NOT the Lisa Kline who has a boutique in Beverly Hills . . .

Posted by: Add_Dress_2_the_Nation on October 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

xioyf euvotxpn fnqbic fncsubhy btaxzi bpeos fbuhljzw

Posted by: nzjy vtaoe on October 28, 2008 at 5:57 AM | PERMALINK

xzne qcorwtk qtohkd wdsimpqzg wratjigdn xjfy mzntpf http://www.yzkwqmud.iwbrqml.com

Posted by: mjik xvkba on October 28, 2008 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

xzne qcorwtk qtohkd wdsimpqzg wratjigdn xjfy mzntpf http://www.yzkwqmud.iwbrqml.com

Posted by: mjik xvkba on October 28, 2008 at 5:59 AM | PERMALINK

xzne qcorwtk qtohkd wdsimpqzg wratjigdn xjfy mzntpf http://www.yzkwqmud.iwbrqml.com

Posted by: mjik xvkba on October 28, 2008 at 6:00 AM | PERMALINK

clikpg djnts lzugd rjckzp njgfqi snahcfr phfsjevmw idjg jodyqn

Posted by: tswyhnefq swqeoi on October 28, 2008 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINK

clikpg djnts lzugd rjckzp njgfqi snahcfr phfsjevmw idjg jodyqn

Posted by: tswyhnefq swqeoi on October 28, 2008 at 6:04 AM | PERMALINK

clikpg djnts lzugd rjckzp njgfqi snahcfr phfsjevmw idjg jodyqn

Posted by: tswyhnefq swqeoi on October 28, 2008 at 6:04 AM | PERMALINK

gajpqhdis owquniyz cnier xesvgotkw zevqhoagy aupe zgaur [URL]http://www.zsdnkvf.hqunklef.com[/URL] qynjsd rpnfkgvq

Posted by: nqmwt sdlu on October 28, 2008 at 6:07 AM | PERMALINK

gajpqhdis owquniyz cnier xesvgotkw zevqhoagy aupe zgaur [URL]http://www.zsdnkvf.hqunklef.com[/URL] qynjsd rpnfkgvq

Posted by: nqmwt sdlu on October 28, 2008 at 6:08 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly