Thursday, October 23, 2008

HOCKEY MOM PALIN BUYS $3000 LOUIS VUITTON HANDBAG FOR HER 6 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER

Times UK - For anyone wondering if Mrs Palin's trademark red jackets, the $2,500 Valentino outfit worn for her Republican convention acceptance speech, or even the $3,000 Louis Vuitton handbag that her six-year-old daughter, Piper, was holding on September 11, came from the wardrobe at her home in Wasilla, Alaska, they did not. The array of couture was provided courtesy of the Republican National Committee's bank account. . .

After her surprise choice as Mr McCain's running-mate at the end of August, Mrs Palin has been provided with an average of $37,500 a week for clothes, make-up, hair styling, accessories, and even baby kit for her six-month-old son Trig. Such a weekly outlay is more than the average annual salary for a plumber.

5 Comments:

At October 24, 2008 10:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what happens when Mr./Mrs. Joe Sixpack are given unlimited access to the public pursestrings, people.

 
At October 25, 2008 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do I get the feeling that this article was written by some Obamabot? I doubt very much that nonsense about the $3000 handbag for her daughter. Can we ask that some sort of proof be supplied, or does saying it make it so????

I think Gov. Palin looks great!!! The money the GOP is spending on Palin is a whole lot less than the FIVE MILLION PLUS than the Dems spent on building the stage for Obama's acceptance speech at the Dem convention....not to mention the $832,000 Obama's campaign has given to that wonderful group ACORN to make sure Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck get registered to vote in this election!!!!

 
At October 26, 2008 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do I get the feeling the above comment was written by some Palinbot? Or maybe just your garden-variety nutjob.

 
At October 26, 2008 8:53 PM, Anonymous Mel said...

How much does a Hickey-Freeman suit cost these days? How about one from Oxxford? How much do shirts from, say Brooks Brothers, cost? Do men who are in the public eye get to buy expensive clothes, but women in the same public eye don't?

What kind of an "issue" is this?

 
At October 29, 2008 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's an 'issue' about the use, or rather, misuse of monies that were entruted to people for uses other than the personal adornment of themselves or their family members. It's not confined to women, as anyone who remebers the flaps over Bill Clinton's and Jonathan Edwards' overpriced coif jobs can tell you. It's also about the fact that representatives of the people should maybe not go about dressing themselves in the royal purple. Are these concepts really too much for the average American to grasp anymore? If so, it tells a lot about us as a nation these days.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home