When the RNC spent around $200,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, the main street media and the liberals went nuts! They bashed the mess out of her, how dare she spend that on clothes. NOW, I don't hear that same msm or liberals in the same spirit of judgement saying anything about this outlandish cost of Obama's inauguration! Why? Doesn't the measly $200,000 RNC dollars seem like chump change compared to the something like $50 million plus in addition to FEMA's cost of OUR dollars??????
Asked by Anonymous at 6:34 PM on Jan. 16, 2009 in Politics & Current Events
Answer by pagan_mama at 6:51 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Both sides love to bash each other. If McCain had won Democrats would have been furious at the price tag of his inauguration. Lindsay Graham was right when he called us a nation of whiners. lol
Answer by Anonymous at 6:36 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 6:37 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by blessed5x at 6:42 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 6:42 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by Soniam301 at 6:44 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 6:47 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
I think that 200,000 dollars is a pittance in comparison. I'm not 100% sure but I don't believe she kept the clothes either. I'm fairly certain she donated them and I believe the total cost of the inauguration was upwards of 160,000,000 dollars (that is at last count). I understand that much of that is from private donations and people who wanted to partake in history but I believe that a donation in the president elects name to the charity of the donater's(sp?) choice would've been a better gesture especially during a recession. Alas, you cannot control what the rich are willing to spend their money on as unfortunate as it may seem.
Answer by micrespo at 6:51 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by JennRN09 at 6:51 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Answer by blessed5x at 6:52 PM on Jan. 16, 2009
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: