On Oct 22, 10:28*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message

...





"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...

"BAR" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:06 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:19:27 -0400, Boater
wrote:

RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
The Republican National Committee appears to have 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.
Elections have become beauty contests anyway. Why wouldn't we expect
wardrobe expenses? Palin is new, she hasn't had the chance to
accumulate a closet full of clothes. You don't wear Prada at the
Wasilla Wall-Mart

If that's true, McCain is in trouble!!! His smile is freaky and scary!

It is a campaign expense. Perfectly acceptable.

Isn't it amazing what the pundits will pick up on ..... and the media
goes nuts with.
Who cares? *It's money to be used in the course of running for office.

Eisboch

You miss the point. *The point is that it is another example of faulty
decision making. *You going to be ok with these sorts of decisions if she
was in office? *Do the ends justfy the means for you? *Or do you think
it's important to also do the right thing? *Cause from where I sit that
does not appear to be how McCain/Palin are operating their campaign and it
would be foolish to think they will do differently in office.

She's not an Obama multi-millionaire, a McCain multi-millionaire or even a
Hillary Clinton multi-millionaire who can all afford to buy their own
expensive suits and outfits.

I really don't think 150k of campaign funds spent on clothes during a
national campaign is a big deal. *It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall
costs.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder how much Obama spends on suits. And then theres that whole
censorship presidency that he will support...

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

On Oct 22, 11:50*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

McCain would have raised the same amount or more if he could have.

On Oct 22, 11:50*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. Eliminate
corporate contributions. Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. Eliminate
corporate contributions. Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

--------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?

Eisboch

On Oct 22, 12:25*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. *Eliminate
corporate contributions. *Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. *Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

--------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?

Eisboch

No. The general public is supporting Obama over McCain 2 to 1. The
real Joe the plumbers. Direct contributions to a candidate are
limited to $2,300.

On Oct 22, 1:17*pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:25*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. *Eliminate
corporate contributions. *Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. *Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

--------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?

Eisboch

No. *The general public is supporting Obama over McCain 2 to 1. *The
real Joe the plumbers. *Direct contributions to a candidate are
limited to $2,300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's why Obama won't release the lists of donors.. for all we
know, forigen governments might be supplying that cash like the
millions the Chinese military gave Clinton.. Which was of course
returned "after" the election...

wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:17 pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:25 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:





wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Here's something that will make you sick .....
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html
Eisboch
Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. Eliminate
corporate contributions. Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.
--------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?
Eisboch
No. The general public is supporting Obama over McCain 2 to 1. The
real Joe the plumbers. Direct contributions to a candidate are
limited to $2,300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's why Obama won't release the lists of donors.. for all we
know, forigen governments might be supplying that cash like the
millions the Chinese military gave Clinton.. Which was of course
returned "after" the election...


D'oh. The Obama campaign has filed about 80,000 pages of lists of
campaign donors with the FEC.

On Oct 22, 1:54*pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:17*pm, wrote:





On Oct 22, 12:25*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. *Eliminate
corporate contributions. *Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. *Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

--------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?

Eisboch

No. *The general public is supporting Obama over McCain 2 to 1. *The
real Joe the plumbers. *Direct contributions to a candidate are
limited to $2,300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's why Obama won't release the lists of donors.. for all we
know, forigen governments might be supplying that cash like the
millions the Chinese military gave Clinton.. Which was of course
returned "after" the election...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bush has borrowed more money from China that anyone ever before.
Therefore, we, as a country are severely indebted to them. Is that
okay with you?

On Oct 22, 2:19*pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:54*pm, wrote:





On Oct 22, 1:17*pm, wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:25*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. *Eliminate
corporate contributions. *Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. *Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

--------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?

Eisboch

No. *The general public is supporting Obama over McCain 2 to 1. *The
real Joe the plumbers. *Direct contributions to a candidate are
limited to $2,300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's why Obama won't release the lists of donors.. for all we
know, forigen governments might be supplying that cash like the
millions the Chinese military gave Clinton.. Which was of course
returned "after" the election...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bush has borrowed more money from China that anyone ever before.
Therefore, we, as a country are severely indebted to them. Is that
okay with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

3 million dollars was illegally donated to the Clinton campaign by the
Chinese Military, not the Chinese Govt, three weeks before the
election and used to flood the west coast with commercial time. The
money was returned after the election with an apology.. That is a lot
different than GW "borrowing" from the Chinese Govt with the approval
of the congress..