October 22, 2008

10/22: Wasilla Main Street Meets Saks Fifth Avenue

Sarah Palin is back in the netroots' crosshairs today. First, Politico reported that the RNC "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize [Palin] and her family" since late August -- including a $49,000 bill from Saks Fifth Avenue and a $75,000 bill from Neiman Marcus. Liberal bloggers are mocking the RNC for spending so much money on Palin's wardrobe instead of putting it to (arguably) better use in swing states. They're also claiming that these massive clothing expenditures completely undermine Palin's "Mrs. Joe Six Pack" persona. David Kurtz quips: "Nothing says Main Street quite like Saks Fifth Avenue."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about an AP investigation which found that Palin "charged the state [of AK] for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business." Liberal bloggers are arguing that this revelation undermines Palin's claims about being a reformer.

Finally, liberal bloggers are (once again) accusing Palin of ignorance following her erroneous claim that the Vice President is "in charge of the United States Senate". The netroots are mocking Palin for being unable to "explain the job that she's running for".

PALIN: It Ain't Cheap To Look This Authentic

Liberal bloggers are mocking Palin after Politico reported that the RNC "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize [Palin] and her family" during the past three months:

"The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74. The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Sarah Palin spent on clothes in one month, $150,000, what the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. [...] Gee, Marshalls and Target are too good for Mrs. Joe Six Pack?"
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "While the American economy is cratering, the 'Hockey Mom Who's Just Like You, Doncha Know' is at Neiman Marcus, dropping $75K of RNC donors' hard-earned money on red leather numbers, fuck-me pumps, and underwear for the First Dude. [...] Fiscal responsibility -- now available in petites and plus sizes."
• Mark Kleiman: "After all, how can you be a real, genuine, hard-working, down-to-earth, non-elitist, middle-class American without $150,000 worth of clothing and make-up paid for by someone else?"
• TPM's Kurtz: "Nothing says Main Street quite like Saks Fifth Avenue."
• Atrios: "A Message To Republican Donors: This is what you're paying for."
• Oliver Willis: "McCain supporters won't like seeing this at the same time they're pulling out of swing states. Couldn't they have used that money in Michigan? Sheesh!"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, American households spend an average of $1,874 a year on clothing. The RNC spent $150,000 on family in seven weeks. Frankly, I'm not even sure how one family can spend that much so quickly. We're talking about an average of more than $2,000 a day, every day, since late August."
• Ezra Klein: "Sarah Palin wasn't a beet farmer last week. She was a governor. Presumably, she had clothing already. The sort of clothing that was appropriate for giving political speeches and attending campaign meetings. You can imagine the need for a couple new things (lots of different climates, etc), but not $150,000 for a whole new wardrobe. And not $150,000 of other people's money for a whole new wardrobe. [...] In any case, I think the odds of the long-awaited Sarah palin press conference just got that much slimmer..."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "If Sarah Palin wants to bilk the RNC's donors out of tens of thousands of dollars in designer clothes, that's her business as far as I'm concerned. It does, however, certainly further complicate efforts to portray a woman with a six figure household income and a personal airplane as a simple country gal with working class tastes."
• Pandagon's Jesse Taylor: "All I'm saying is that if a girly-man Democrat had spent $150,000 outfitting themselves for ten weeks, it would be the story that consigned them, their ticket and perhaps their party to FOREVER ELECTORAL DOOOOOOOOOOM."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "I wonder...how this will resonate with Joe the Plumber types and those who are struggling economically, facing foreclosures and unable to pay their bills, or even those concerned about wasteful government spending."

Daily Kos' Jed L thinks this revelation will damage McCain's chances: "McCain-land might get lucky and skate by on this if they play their cards right and other news drowns out this story, but nine times out of ten, this will be the moment when not just the media, but also other Republicans, start talking about the McCain-Palin campaign in the past tense."

PALIN II: Welfare Queen?

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Palin after an AP investigation found that Palin "charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business":

"...The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol [Palin] for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters' 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls."

• dday: "Why is the nanny state, in the form of the state of Alaska, caring and feeding for Sarah Palin and her family? Doesn't she know she has to WORK for that money instead of taking a handout?"
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[Palin] does seem to have a talent for getting other people to pay for things, though. And while I don't mind when she charges the RNC, I might be a bit annoyed if I were a citizen of Alaska. [...] Where I come from, when you say that your kids were invited and they weren't, that's called 'lying.' And when you amend expense reports to say they were on official business when they weren't, that's called 'falsifying documents.' No doubt that's because I don't come from Real America, and haven't absorbed nearly enough of its timeless moral values."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Socialist! Palin put kids on state tab."

PALIN III: Know The Job You're Running For, Governor!

Liberal bloggers are (once again) accusing Palin of ignorance after she erroneously claimed that the Vice President is "in charge of the United States Senate" (video here):

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, 'What does the Vice President do?'
PALIN: Aw, that's something that Piper would ask me, as a second grader, also. That's a great question, Brandon, and a Vice President has a really great job, because no only are they there to support the President agenda, they're like a team member, the team mate to that President. But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job.

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "The Vice President may sit as the presiding officer of the Senate, but has no legislative role whatsoever, with the exception of casting tie-breaking votes if the Senate is deadlocked. There's no 'get[tin'] in there with the Senators and mak[in'] a lot of good policy changes.' Which is why modern Vice Presidents hardly ever bother to take the chair on more than a few ceremonial occasions."
• Think Progress' Ryan Powers: "While Palin suggests that questions about what the Vice President does is something only her daughter Piper would ask, Palin herself asked this very question on national television in July. Apparently, she still hasn't learned the correct answer. Article I of the Constitution establishes an exceptionally limited role for the Vice President -- giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is 'equally divided.' [...] Moreover, the U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of Vice Presidents has been to preside over the Senate 'only on ceremonial occasions'."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "This is the second time that Governor Palin has tried and failed to explain the job that she's running for. [...] She [has] made Dan Quayle look like a genius."
• Blue Texan: "This just in: Sarah Palin still doesn't freaking know what the Vice President does. I know wingnuts aren't supposed to know jack about the US Constitution, but this is getting rigoddamndiculous."
• Willis: "Sarah Palin does not know what the Vice President does. When asked [about] the role of the veep, she proceeds to describe...the Senate Majority Leader. Please, America, let's not go dumb this election."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "[Palin told] an NBC affiliate in Colorado that the Vice President is 'in charge' of the U.S. Senate. I confess, it never occurred to me that Palin's vast executive experience would actually make her more ignorant of how the legislative branch works."

BIDEN: Listen To Joe, Swing Voters!

Conservative bloggers continue to mock Joe Biden for predicting that Barack Obama's election would lead to "an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy":

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "As I have written many a time, if Joe Biden didn't exist, we would have to invent him. But it is worth recalling that during the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Biden made clear his belief that Obama was not prepared to be President. Maybe, his selection as Vice President notwithstanding, he let it slip that he still doesn't believe that Obama is prepared to be President. Either that, or Joe Biden possesses no control whatsoever over his own verbiage."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As we and many others on the right have noted, but as the mainstream media have mostly ignored, Joe Biden issued a remarkable warning on Sunday: within six months after his inauguration, fledgling President Barack Obama will face an 'international crisis' brought on by our enemies to 'test [his] mettle.' [...] Most remarkably, Biden forecast the Obama's response to such a crisis will seem wrong to most Americans."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I guess that we know now why Biden took the day off -- but not what the method is that the Obama campaign is using to keep this from happening again. I'm personally guessing electroshock, but that's because I'm married to a mad scientist (well, mad engineer)."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt predicts that Biden's gaffe will boost McCain's poll numbers: "The Battleground Poll: A Dead Heat! What happened to push these numbers into the statistical tie? Obama's lecture to Joe the Plumber about 'spreading the wealth around.' What will continue the favorable trend for McCain? Joe Biden's blunt warning of how the globe's very bad guys would try and push the rookie around."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis complains about media bias: "Is it just me, or is the fact that Palin spent a lot of money on clothes getting as much -- or more -- attention than Joe Biden's 'guarantee' that Obama will be 'tested'?"

HORSERACE: Is McCain Betting The Farm On PA?

Bloggers are discussing reports that the McCain camp is cutting its ad spending in CO, NH, WI, MN, and ME in order to focus on winning PA. Several liberal bloggers think this strategy makes some sense:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "When presented with a list of crappy choices, Pennsylvania is the best option for McCain. Its large size and lack of early voting provides McCain with potential time and a potential margin no other targeting strategy can. He has to win a state where he currently trails by 8% or more, and Pennsylvania is clearly the best option."
• Al Giordano: "Here's what I think is going on at McCain strategy central: They're getting tired of the daily drumbeat on cable TV news and by newspaper pundits that says things like, 'here are the six or seven swing states, all of them voted for [George W.] Bush in 2004, Obama is winning or tied in most of them, and for McCain to win he has to run the table, taking every single one of them or it's over.' That message...has cast a deathly spell over the GOP base's enthusiasm, which is now being reflected in paltry early voting numbers by Republican voters, especially in Nevada and North Carolina. And so they're trying to offer the faithful a belief in the suggestion that McCain, too, has multiple paths to win. The senior staff seems to think it has convinced McCain to drop his reluctance to play the race card, with trial balloons afloatin' that Obama's ex-reverend will get an encore in the coming days in negative ads and such. And if they're really going to go there -- to try to make the campaign about race and, specifically, some white people's fears of pigmentation -- then it would make total sense for McCain to temporarily ignore Colorado, where that message ain't gonna hunt, and shift focus to Appalachia and the South: Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and, yes, Pennsylvania and even Florida being the swing states where racially charged politics have sometimes, in the past, worked for the Republicans, or, in Appalachia, where they worked for the Clintons during the primaries."

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver isn't convinced that this strategy is wise: "My guess is that something like this happened: they ran their usual set of internal polls over the weekend, and saw themselves 5 points down in Colorado and Virginia. 8 points down in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and 10 points down in Iowa and New Mexico. But perhaps Pennsylvania came in at a -6 or something -- not much worse than the others -- and they decided: why worry about all those states when we can worry about just this one. [...] If a campaign gets an internal poll that diverges from the consensus of public polling, it needs to ask itself why the divergence exists. If it cannot explain it, it should probably not treat the internal poll as actionable."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I worry that by ceding Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota, McCain may be trying to use a desperate racially and culturally divisive strategy to gin up some votes in Appalachia. If you're going to lose, it seems to me that this is a horrible way to define the GOP for the next four years. If you're going to win, the polarization of such a strategy could make governing all but impossible."

HORSERACE II: The Rightroots Approve

Several conservative bloggers think McCain's emphasis on PA makes sense:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I think TNR's right that with so many toss-ups to defend and the Democrats with an almost $40 million cash advantage (and growing), he's probably better off concentrating on one state that can get him those extra 18 EVs rather than spreading out across the country and dividing resources among several. If he wins Pennsylvania, he can lose both [CO and VA] and still win the election. As the Times notes, late deciders and rural white voters broke hard for Hillary [Clinton] there so a full push into the state is bound to do some good."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "My guy on the ground thinks...that if McCain does as well among the key demographics in neighboring Pennsylvania as he is in Ohio, then the Democrats ought to be sweating about that state. That's far from a given, of course; Pennsylvania is a bluer state than Ohio. I don't know that McCain will win Pennsylvania, but it isn't like he hasn't been given enough material -- 'spread the wealth around', 'no coal plants', [PA Rep. Jack] Murtha alternately calling his constituents 'racists' and 'rednecks,' the bitter small-town clinger comment, etc."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers are buzzing about PA Gov. Ed Rendell's admission that he's "a little nervous" about Obama's chances in PA:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The good news is Ed Rendell is nervous."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I thought Obama had things sewn up."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Bowers thinks Dems should ignore Rendell: "During this time, please ignore anything Ed Rendell says, as he is a long-time concern troll for Democrats (remember: he loves Rick Santorum, Justice [Samuel] Alito, and Fox News, but hates Social Security). On top of it all, any trolling Governor in his position would write dozens of memos to cover his ass in the event of a Pennsylvania debacle. If, somehow, it all goes wrong, Rendell can at least say to Fox News 'hey, I warned Obama to campaign more in Pennsylvania.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Toward A New Sobriety

Ezra Klein:

"There's a lot that's weird about David Brooks' column yesterday, but I don't think it's the sort of thing liberals should dismiss. What you're seeing right now, with Obama looking likely to win the election, is an effort to define the center. Jon Meacham defines it as the center-right. David Brooks, through 'Patio Man,' defines it as the right-right. In either case, it's an attempt to cement a conventional wisdom that circumscribes a President Obama's options.

Central to the battle will be how folks choose to understand the financial crisis. And this can go either way. On the one hand, the crisis could be seen one of those historically disruptive events that punctures the system's preference for gridlock and creates a space for bold action, much like JFK's assassination or the Great Depression. But Brooks is trying to define it differently as a troubling crisis of uncertainty that will trigger a reflexive status quo bias in the electorate. Under this model, the crisis explains away Obama's presidency -- oh, he only got elected because the stock market bottomed out, not because people agreed with him -- rather than enables his agenda. You can see it in Brooks' column. '[Democrats], or any party, will run astray if they threaten the mood of chastened sobriety that has swept over the subdivisions.' Has a 'mood of chastened sobriety' overwhelmed our exurbs? Dunno. Indeed, it's not even really clear what that would imply. What is a 'chastened sobriety?' But if elites become convinced that it has, and they define it as a popular resistance to actual government action, that will be rather bad for a President Obama.

Which is one reason I'd like to see liberals wrest back the concept of sobriety. There's nothing sober about letting carbon scorch the earth and cause untold trillions in economic damage. There's nothing sober about letting health care costs crush the federal budget and explode our deficit. There's nothing sober about letting a recession deepen rather than accepting the countercyclical spending that will restart the economy. The people who want to head off these catastrophes are being responsible. The people who want to disrupt action on looming threats are being reckless. When the car is headed off a cliff, there's nothing prudent about refusing to change its course."

LEST WE FORGET: How Can You Possibly Be Undecided?

David Sedaris unloads on undecided voters (h/t Sullivan):

"...You'll see this man or woman -- someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. 'Well, Charlie,' they say, 'I've gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can't seem to make up my mind!' Some insist that there's very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they're with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?'

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 22, 2008 01:09 PM