The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

First the $500 shoes and then the 7, or is it 8, homes. Now this...

 

Cindy McCain's $300,000 Outfit

by Vanity Fair

September 4, 2008, 10:29 AM

 

One of the persistent memes in the Republican line of attack against Barack Obama is the notion that he is an elitist, whereas the G.O.P. represent real working Americans like Levi “F-in’ Redneck” Johnston.

 

It caught our attention, then, when First Lady Laura Bush and would-be First Lady Cindy McCain took the stage Tuesday night wearing some rather fancy designer clothes. So we asked our fashion department to price out their outfits.

 

Laura Bush

Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500

Stuart Weitzman heels: $325

Pearl stud earrings: $600–$1,500

Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325

 

Cindy McCain

Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000

Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500

Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000

Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000–$25,000

Shoes, designer unknown: $600

Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100

 

Wow! No wonder McCain has so many houses: his wife has the price of a Scottsdale split-level hanging from her ears.

 

(All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.)

 

I can see why they are labeling Obama the elitist. Most people can relate to the lifestyle of the McCains and their private fleet of jets.

[HuskyCaucasian]

LMAO!! "Real McCain of Genius"

Edited September 5, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[BigSqwert]

Even though McCain adviser Rick Davis called Americans a bunch of whiners I'm a bit baffled that the GOP spent an inordinate amount of time at the convention whining about the media. How exactly is that going to help them? Didn't work too well for Mrs Clinton.

Edited September 5, 2008 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

Even though McCain adviser Rick Davis called Americans a bunch of whiners I'm a bit baffled that the GOP spent an inordinate amount of time at the convention whining about the media. How exactly is that going to help them? Didn't work too well for Mrs Clinton.

it's been a GOP rallying cry for as long as I can remember (I'm 26).

[Soxy]

Even though McCain adviser Rick Davis called Americans a bunch of whiners I'm a bit baffled that the GOP spent an inordinate amount of time at the convention whining about the media. How exactly is that going to help them? Didn't work too well for Mrs Clinton.

Was Bill's mom there? Oh, you mean Senator Clinton. Right.

[BigSqwert]

Was Bill's mom there? Oh, you mean Senator Clinton. Right.

Yes. She and her campaign did a lot of complaining about the media coverage during the primaries. I guess it worked for about a week or so because the MSM completely focused on Obama for a few days.

[Soxy]

Yes. She and her campaign did a lot of complaining about the media coverage during the primaries. I guess it worked for about a week or so because the MSM completely focused on Obama for a few days.

That wasn't my objection, obviously.

[lostfan]

You're objecting to the fact that he didn't use her proper title? I didn't know that people did that outside of the military.

[Soxy]

You're objecting to the fact that he didn't use her proper title? I didn't know that people did that outside of the military.

I was. Mostly the use of Mrs.

 

They use it in all the debates. (I remember Norm Coleman having to address Walter Mondale as Vice President.) I always thought it was the polite thing to do to refer to people by their titles. And I think demoting them is a common sign of disrespect. (Like using first names instead of family names--it will be interesting to see if Sarah Palin becomes Sarah or Palin in the media.)

 

ETA: I wouldn't have made the point if he would have said "The Clintons" or "Clinton"

[lostfan]

I was. Mostly the use of Mrs.

 

They use it in all the debates. (I remember Norm Coleman having to address Walter Mondale as Vice President.) I always thought it was the polite thing to do to refer to people by their titles. And I think demoting them is a common sign of disrespect. (Like using first names instead of family names--it will be interesting to see if Sarah Palin becomes Sarah or Palin in the media.)

Since I'm not one of their peers I refer to all politicians by their last name by default with no title attached, I don't care who they are. Only if I'm writing or saying something formal do I put their title on it, for example I wrote Dick Durbin once and obviously I wrote to him "Senator Durbin."

 

edit: and now I see your edit, which agrees with what I just wrote

Edited September 5, 2008 by lostfan

[BigSqwert]

I didn't realize i made a faux pas. As I was typing I thought it would be rude to refer to her as Hillary so I went with Mrs Clinton. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.

Edited September 5, 2008 by BigSqwert

[Soxy]

I didn't realize i made a faux pas. As I was typing I thought it would be rude to refer to her as Hillary so I went with Mrs Clinton. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.

Sorry, it's just my one quirk. I guess I'm more sensitive to it since there isn't a corresponding term for men (and it defines the woman by her relationship to a man).

 

I also always think about it like this: anyone can get married. Not anyone can become a popular (in her elected state) senator, get a law degree or (more generally) get a PhD, MD or whatever.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sorry, it's just my one quirk. I guess I'm more sensitive to it since there isn't a corresponding term for men (and it defines the woman by her relationship to a man).

 

I also always think about it like this: anyone can get married. Not anyone can become a popular (in her elected state) senator, get a law degree or (more generally) get a PhD, MD or whatever.

I like to point out to people that my wife and I are Doctor and Mister (last name).

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Senate Dems to force equal pay vote on McCain

 

Democrats have hammered Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) this summer over his vote against legislation pushing equal pay for women and men. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will get a second act in September, as Democrats seek to remind voters that McCain opposed it, according to an e-mail from the Democratic Senate message center. It lists "[e]qual pay legislation" as among the issues the Senate will take up in September.

[NorthSideSox72]

Senate Dems to force equal pay vote on McCain

Anyone have any good background on what this bill actually does? The link provided here is just a one graf blog entry.

 

[Rex Kickass]

From what I understand, the bill allows a worker to sue if they discover that they are being paid unequally for equal work, beyond the 6 month statutory deadline currently in law. Lily Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for decades and discovered after early retirement, that she appeared to have been paid intentionally less for her factory work because she was a woman, rather than a man.

 

She sued. It went to the Supreme Court. It was thrown out because Goodyear's decision was made (in Ledbetter's case) to emply pay discrimination in 1979, not 1997, when Ledbetter made inquiries and discoveries that indicated this policy.

 

This act would, I believe, eliminate the statutory limit on these actions.

[NorthSideSox72]

From what I understand, the bill allows a worker to sue if they discover that they are being paid unequally for equal work, beyond the 6 month statutory deadline currently in law. Lily Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for decades and discovered after early retirement, that she appeared to have been paid intentionally less for her factory work because she was a woman, rather than a man.

 

She sued. It went to the Supreme Court. It was thrown out because Goodyear's decision was made (in Ledbetter's case) to emply pay discrimination in 1979, not 1997, when Ledbetter made inquiries and discoveries that indicated this policy.

 

This act would, I believe, eliminate the statutory limit on these actions.

If that's all it does, and still requires litigation for determination, then I'd be OK with it. In fact, I see no reason to vote against it in that case.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

:headbang

[BigSqwert]

I find it odd that McCain is running a new negative ad against Obama labeling him a celebrity the day after his speech drew more viewers than Obama's. And after all the Palin hoopla. Go figure.

 

 

http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/05/obama-the-celeb/

Edited September 5, 2008 by BigSqwert

[Nokona]

I find it odd that McCain is running a new negative ad against Obama labeling him a celebrity the day after his speech drew more viewers than Obama's. And after all the Palin hoopla. Go figure.

 

 

http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/05/obama-the-celeb/

 

So not only are they going to run on his platform, they're now going to use the "more of the same" line.

 

what a bunch of f***tards

[BigSqwert]

So not only are they going to run on his platform, they're now going to use the "more of the same" line.

 

what a bunch of f***tards

No kidding. GWB has been in control for 8 years and our economy is for s*** but Obama is more of the same!?!?! WTF? I don't think 5% of Obama's policy stances resemble Bush's. What delusional world are they living in? It's laughable at this point.

[The Critic]

So not only are they going to run on his platform, they're now going to use the "more of the same" line.

 

what a bunch of f***tards

"I'm John McCain and I approve this blatant ripoff of the line Al Gore used in reference to me 150 times about a week ago."

 

And I'm sorry, but if there's a bigger "instant celebrity" right now than The Hockey Mom, I haven't seen him or her.

Edited September 5, 2008 by The Critic

[DrunkBomber]

No kidding. GWB has been in control for 8 years and our economy is for s*** but Obama is more of the same!?!?! WTF? I don't think 5% of Obama's policy stances resemble Bush's. What delusional world are they living in? It's laughable at this point.

Ya, and congress being taken over by the dems in 06 has really done a lot to help. I didnt realize how much BETTER things have gotten since the switch. Apparently congress has nothing to do with the economy.

[Balta1701]

Ya, and congress being taken over by the dems in 06 has really done a lot to help. I didnt realize how much BETTER things have gotten since the switch. Apparently congress has nothing to do with the economy.

Because there's nothing a minority can do to...you know, hold things up using various techniques...especially in a closely divided senate and with a white house that has a veto.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ya, and congress being taken over by the dems in 06 has really done a lot to help. I didnt realize how much BETTER things have gotten since the switch. Apparently congress has nothing to do with the economy.

you cant do s*** in congress if you have a small majority and an opposing president who wont compromise. You can get through legislation, but if Bush vetos, and you dont have 2/3 willing to override, it's dead. They've tried.