Fashionistas

The media really dug deep and turned up some amazing dirt on Sarah Palin this time. I guess its all over now.

Can you believe the audacity of the RNC? How could they stoop so low as to spend that kind of money on clothes for a candidate?

Strange how nobody seems concerned with how much the male candidates are spending though isn’t it? The press has shown a clear leftward bias so often that only the most self-deluded apologists try to pretend it doesn’t exist. (I use a little code name for them, “democrats”). This new sexist bias is still a little unexpected, and unbecoming of even such low life forms as the media.

Had Hillarity won the nomination of her party, and someone questioned the DNC on expenses toward her wardrobe, the left would have villified that person. I’m sure there was no hesitation to print such meaningless yet snide information about a Republican woman.

Why?
As is almost always the case, there is no such thing as stooping too low when attacking conservatives. This is largely because attacking them on facts or ideas isn’t terribly effective. If the truth won’t work, maybe twisted misrepresentations will. If the ideas aren’t particularly assailable, I guess the source of the wardrobe is fair game.

What it really comes down to though, is an attempt to portray her as a small-town rube who didn’t have, and couldn’t afford, the apparel necessary for a vice-presidential candidate. As usual, the left shows it’s complete disregard and disdain for mainstreet and their elitist self-regard.

Personally, I would have voted for Sarah over Obama/Biden if she dressed in jeans and T-shirts all the time. The issues and character are the important choice-points in this election, and that gap is too wide to devote any thought to who bought the clothes.

This entry was posted on 27. October 2008 at 07:51 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print