TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Palin children traveled on state funds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Palin children traveled on state funds  

post #1 of 100
10/22/08 at 3:26am
Thread Starter 
I scrolled down and did not see this listed. If someone already posted this story please delete.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27310999/

I understand the state law does not really address child travel expenses but it does say you can reimbursed for official travel expenses on anyone conducting official state business. In at least some of these trips there was no official business these kids were attending. That is unless you consider going to dad's snowmobile race official business, I don't but some probably will. Also several of the even organizers said they had no idea the kids would be attending, some cases the kids did not participate, or Palin requested they be allowed to come along. Which the latter would be ok by me as long as she paid for those expenses , if the kids did not participate, out of her own pocket instead of the state. I guess if her and McCain make it into office we will see a lot more of this.
post #2 of 100
10/22/08 at 4:33am
The state of Alaska allowed the expenses. Its up to them.

Nancy Pelosi flying around in her jet costs the taxpayers of CA lots more money.
post #3 of 100
10/22/08 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
The state of Alaska allowed the expenses. Its up to them.

Nancy Pelosi flying around in her jet costs the taxpayers of CA lots more money.
And if we were talking about Palin herself, Nancy Pelosi might be a valid comparison.

I'm not surprised by anything Palin does. She's worse than Bush.
post #4 of 100
10/22/08 at 9:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
And if we were talking about Palin herself, Nancy Pelosi might be a valid comparison.

I'm not surprised by anything Palin does. She's worse than Bush.
How so? It's the taxpayers of the state that both are accountable to. And in Palin's case, unless you live in Alaska, what does it matter?
post #5 of 100
10/22/08 at 9:35am
With Palin, it isn't "Country First," it's "Sarah First."

Did you read about the spending spree she got courtesy of Republican campaign funds?
Quote:
The Web site cited financial disclosure records that suggest the wardrobe makeover began in September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling nearly $50,000.

The documents also show a $75,000 shopping trip at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in September, as well as about $4,700 spent on hair and makeup, Politico reported. Documents don't show similar costs in August.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-spruce-palin/

Hot diggety if someone would spend $150,000 for me to pick out clothes, hair and makeup I'd look pretty good too! Oh no wait, make that only $145,100. Looks like the "1st dude" Todd got some new threads too.

Quote:
The Neiman Marcus branch where Republicans shopped in September was located in Minneapolis, the site of the party's national convention where Palin was introduced as McCain's running mate. Republicans spent $9,440 at a Macy's shop in the city during the same period. Another $4,900 was registered at Atelier, a men's fashion emporium, suggesting Palin's husband Todd was treated to a new wardrobe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...008-sarahpalin


Hey she even had a "Pretty Woman" moment at Saks 5th Avenue to the tune of $50,000. I wonder if New Yorkers are "real Americans."
post #6 of 100
10/22/08 at 10:32am
I don't mind my donated funds going to that. Unless you sent money to the RNC, it's none of anyone's beeswax.

Talk about not attacking someone on the issues.
post #7 of 100
10/22/08 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
How so? It's the taxpayers of the state that both are accountable to. And in Palin's case, unless you live in Alaska, what does it matter?
At the republican national convention, she made a big deal that she sold the govorner's jet on Ebay. She bragged about that to the entire nation. At the time, I was impressed. Again, the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. That's why this is important to all of us, not just Alaskan citizens.
post #8 of 100
10/22/08 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
At the republican national convention, she made a big deal that she sold the govorner's jet on Ebay. She bragged about that to the entire nation. At the time, I was impressed. Again, the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. That's why this is important to all of us, not just Alaskan citizens.
SHE SAID SHE PUT IT ON E=-BAY. Not sold. And THAT is on the Alaskan taxpayers. They don't seem to have a problem with her. At least 80% anyway.

Good grief. Do we have to go through this again????
post #9 of 100
10/22/08 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
I don't mind my donated funds going to that. Unless you sent money to the RNC, it's none of anyone's beeswax.

Talk about not attacking someone on the issues.
Actually, clothing expenditures are explicitly prohibited as a use of political funds. For a man who claims to be such a reformer of campaign finance, he doesn't seem to know the FEC regulations.
LARGE PDF http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

See page 66 where it says that any expenditure made by a party on behalf of a presidential or vice-presidential candidate shall be considered to fall under the same regulations as if it were the campaign spending it (so, it doesn't matter that it was the RNC and not the McCain campaign itself).

See page 59, where the purchase of clothing is expressly prohibited. Notice where this is under "Prohibited Use"

You see, people care because it violates campaign finance laws.

So... yea, I'd say it is attacking them on the issues. You know, McCain claims campaign finance reform as one of his strong points.

Interestingly, the RNC spent twice as much for makeup for McCain than Palin.
post #10 of 100
10/22/08 at 11:47am
Just saw the "source" for all this was from Politico.com.

Nuff said.
post #11 of 100
10/22/08 at 11:53am
If it's not true, then why is a McCain spokesperson putting a charity spin on it?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6072032.html

Busted!

I guess the days of the humble "respectable Republican cloth coat" are long gone.
post #12 of 100
10/22/08 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Just saw the "source" for all this was from Politico.com.

Nuff said.
Source for what? All I see in this thread are links to Msnbc, Fox, FEC.gov, and the Guardian. The source for the clothing expenditures are public records regarding campaign expenditures, the source for Palin's children travelling on the state's dime with no official business is an AP investigation http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...PI65QD93V69Q00

You managed to find it on some blog somewhere. Doesn't mean that's the "source".

And just to re-iterate, in both cases these expenditures may be found by the governing bodies (the FEC, the state of Alaska) to violate the law.
post #13 of 100
10/22/08 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
SHE SAID SHE PUT IT ON E=-BAY. Not sold. And THAT is on the Alaskan taxpayers. They don't seem to have a problem with her. At least 80% anyway.
No need to yell. Whether she sold it on Ebay or put it up for sale on Ebay is not my point. She bragged about it. To me, that makes the discussion about her family's travel expenses fair to discuss. She opened the door herself on national television.
BTW, it was sold at a loss. She didn't mention that.
Quote:
Palin put the jet up for sale on eBay, a move she later trumpeted in her star-making speech at the Republican National Convention, and it was ultimately sold by the state at a loss.
post #14 of 100
10/22/08 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
The state of Alaska allowed the expenses. Its up to them.

Nancy Pelosi flying around in her jet costs the taxpayers of CA lots more money.
So it makes it ok because someone else does it?
I understand you like Palin that is completely fine but will you really be ok if she has the same trends if she becomes vice president. Will you be ok with taxpayers moneys going to stuff like this. It doesn't mean it will happen but it could based off of past trends. Just because Politicians do something doesn't mean that the public is aware of it or that they are for it. I know this happens with more then just Palin and Weather it is Obama Biden Mcain or Palin or anyone else I don't think that money that is meant for one thing should go to another or go to luxuries for the politicians. Again I realize that this is not just a problem with Palin or just Republicans it is a problem with all parties I just am a bit confused why you think it is ok. Are you just defending Palin because you feel like she is being attacked and she is your choice because or will you really be ok if she uses taxpayers money for things like vacations for her children and such. It is ok to be for someone and not be for everything they do or say. Im not trying to upset you I'm just trying to understand your view.
post #15 of 100
10/22/08 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
If it's not true, then why is a McCain spokesperson putting a charity spin on it?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6072032.html

Busted!

I guess the days of the humble "respectable Republican cloth coat" are long gone.
"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign." So what's the problem?
post #16 of 100
10/22/08 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign." So what's the problem?
It was against campaign finance law. That's the problem. See below.
post #17 of 100
10/22/08 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign." So what's the problem?
For starters, this wasn't their initial response. When they were first asked about it, they stonewalled.
Quote:
At first, the McCain-Palin campaign and RNC refused to explain the spending.

"The RNC does not discuss expenses as it relates to strategy," said spokesman Danny Diaz.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli..._makeup_f.html

And if this doesn't re-open the perception of her as "Caribou Barbie" I don't know what does.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...avorite_d.html

To say nothing of the fact that most hockey moms make a fashion statement kind of like mine, which is "K-Mart clearance rack."

That is some darn expensive lipstick on that "Pit Bull." You could buy out the entire Lancome counter at a good-size department store for what they spent on make-up alone for her. Jes' plain folks!
post #18 of 100
10/22/08 at 1:23pm
You will have to pardon the RNC for not giving an immediate explanation. We all know how Barry gives out those immediate explanations.

Perhaps it had to be researched first.

Personally I am more concerned about the millions in illegal foreign campaign contributions Barry is getting
post #19 of 100
10/22/08 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You will have to pardon the RNC for not giving an immediate explanation. We all know how Barry gives out those immediate explanations.

Perhaps it had to be researched first.

Personally I am more concerned about the millions in illegal foreign campaign contributions Barry is getting
Oh, you're just jealous because the Russians turned down McCain's request for campaign money
post #20 of 100
10/22/08 at 1:42pm
Thread Starter 
My issue is not whether or not the people of Alaska were okay with this spending, my issue is whether or not the spending was within the laws of her state. As far as I can tell a lot of the time it was just the kids tagging along and they ,the kids, were not on official business. And I am sure her intent was just to spend more time with her kids ,and thats fine, by she should have paid with that out of her own pocket instead of getting the state to pay it ,i.e. the taxpayers.
post #21 of 100
10/22/08 at 1:52pm
Boy they blew through a lot of money, look at the Schedule F.
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/is...in-clothes.jpg

And apparently the guy behind it, Jeff Larson, learned the art of campaign management from Karl Rove.
Quote:
Larson is the Karl Rove protégé who’s a principal in the robocalling firm of FLS Connect (the “FLS†stands for Tony Feather, Jeff Larson, and Tom Syndhorst, all veteran Republican political operatives)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810u/palin-clothes

They better hurry up and put those clothes in the Goodwill dumpster, the longer Palin hangs on to them, the more she could be liable for paying taxes on their use.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...pert-pali.html
post #22 of 100
10/22/08 at 5:37pm
The taxpayers of Alaska can take it up with her if they have a problem with it. Obviously they didn't, or at least haven't filed a complaint that anyone has dug up yet.

I don't agree with a lot of things my tax dollars are spent on, so no, I wouldn't like it to be for new clothes for anyone. And I do exercise my right to vote against anyone who does misuse tax monies, as well as writing to my representatives to complain about it.

And the old ASSUME word will bite you every time, Krazycatlover. Til someone has done something wrong, don't ASSUME they will.
post #23 of 100
10/22/08 at 6:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ping View Post
My issue is not whether or not the people of Alaska were okay with this spending, my issue is whether or not the spending was within the laws of her state. As far as I can tell a lot of the time it was just the kids tagging along and they ,the kids, were not on official business. And I am sure her intent was just to spend more time with her kids ,and thats fine, by she should have paid with that out of her own pocket instead of getting the state to pay it ,i.e. the taxpayers.
I don't know Alaskan State law but I do know that in our Provincial Parliament here in Toronto it would be allowed. Politicians get a certain number of flights for their family as well as themselves so that they can get to see their family while on official business away from home even if the family plays no part in that business. They decided it made for better politicians if they could see their families more often.
post #24 of 100
10/22/08 at 7:37pm
I have to say, I have no problem with the kids travelling with her, and I have no problem with them spending a bunch of money on a makeover for her.

I'm glad the kids are going with her on trips, I think it's important for them to stay together as a family. Who pays for it is up to state lawmakers. If she broke the law, that's bad, but if it's within the law, then that's fine. If you elect a Governor with young children, you expect them to be travelling with her.

And as for the clothes and make up, of course they're going to do it. She has to look professional and business-like, and she is travelling a lot and doing a lot of public appearances, and is going to need a heck of a lot of clothes and make up to keep looking fresh. It's probably not easy to be doing laundry on the road when you're constantly on the go.

Once again, if it's within the law, then whatever. If it is against regulations for what that money can be spent on, then the party financial people are to blame.
post #25 of 100
10/22/08 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign." So what's the problem?
I have to admit, I don't really see what the issue is with campaign wardrobe either. If you look really close, you'll probably see Mephisto, Armani and Ferragamo all over both campaigns.
post #26 of 100
10/22/08 at 9:29pm
Having the clothing going to charities cracks me up. I just have this image of these ladies walking into soup kitchens wearing Palin's fancy outfits
post #27 of 100
10/22/08 at 11:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
The state of Alaska allowed the expenses. Its up to them.

Nancy Pelosi flying around in her jet costs the taxpayers of CA lots more money.
And, just out of interest, if it were Barack Obama who had done the same thing, would you be defending him, too?
post #28 of 100
10/23/08 at 4:03am
Remember how people went nuts over Edwards' 400 dollar haircut or Clinton's from Christophe?
Her Alaskan wardrobe I guess wasn't good enough for the national stage. Lets be honest. It wasn't.
I have to admit to being a woman who loves stylish clothing so if I were overhauling her image I would have bought some nice clothes for her.
I think the number is a little much. They could have done the same for half the money.
Tax payers paying for her children is wrong. Why couldn't the campaign pay for the tickets for her children?
The makeup for McCain explains why he looks so chalky all of the time. I wondered about that.

What makes it all an issue is this Joe Sixpack thing. I have a feeling that Joe Sixpack's wife is not doing her grocery shopping in Jimmy Choos or Blahniks. Or her Valentino jacket carrying her Hermes bag. They keep characterizing her as every woman but dressing her like a Manhattan socialite.
post #29 of 100
10/23/08 at 4:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
And, just out of interest, if it were Barack Obama who had done the same thing, would you be defending him, too?
I'm not defending HER per se, so much as the policy.

If the taxpayers of Alaska or whereever allow it, so be it.
post #30 of 100
10/23/08 at 6:36am
Once again, both of the issues at hand were against the laws.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Palin children traveled on state funds