Many years ago I traveled as a dining room pianist, playing hotels throughout the United States. Most of the time the bookings were for six weeks, then I packed the trunk of my Cadillac and moved to the next town.
Back then the IRS had a ruling that a musician could not deduct as a business expense the cost of the clothes he or she dressed in for the performances. Well, that's not exactly true. You could deduct costumes and clothing if it was obvious they would be inappropriate attire elsewhere.
That, by the way, was the genesis of spangled tux coats and yellow suits and goofy shoes and the like that rock ‘n roll singers began to wear.
It was why female singers wore gowns so tight that they could prove that they couldn't sit down in them.
But there was another factor that was involved. When you're on the road and on the move, it is difficult to find a way to get clothes to the dry cleaners and back before you are leaving for the next town.
And on top of that, dry cleaning the outrageous costumes and the spangled tux jackets was usually unsuccessful.
There was a mail-order uniform company called Saxony. Their spangled tux jackets were less than $50 a piece, and the tux pants were about $20. Most of us adopted this approach:
We would order ten sets of jackets and pants and have Saxony send them to the hotel that was next on our list. So when we would leave the previous place, we would leave behind the wardrobe we had worn there.
That solved the dry cleaning problem and having to pack unnecessary volumes in the car trunk.
The latest criticism of vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is a large wardrobe bill that was paid by the Republican Party. That's unfair criticism, really, since she's faced with the same problem I was: She's moving constantly and she's somehow got to have enough clean outfits for her appearances. The only way to do it is to have a lot of them.
The difference is that she performs for free and for the benefit of the Republican Party. Why would anyone think it inappropriate for the party to reimburse all of her expenses, including the wardrobe?
BILL CHERRY, REALTORS
DALLAS
214 503-8563
1 800 314-7110
Now in Our 44th Year Serving America
Bill, I don't see any problem with it, especially since the RNC has stated that all the clothes will be donated to charity after the campaign ends. Interestingly enough, one of my friends (and past clients who is a D.C. area fashion expert) was quoted the other day in a national media article about Palin's wardrobe stating that the choice of her clothing is "appropriate for someone applying for the Vice President's job."
I am sure that when the totally 'frump ugly' Hillary Clinton was made over a few years ago, she had a wardrobe total close to this. Why isn't anyone reporting this?
What the heck, her highness Nancy Pelosi wears Armani at $1000 a pop. How much is Katie Couric's yearly wardrobe? Barbara Wa-Wa?
The clothing isn't hers.... and will be donated/auctioned for charity.
But that doesn't get reported by the lamestream media.
I don't think it's so much that she bought it....but where she bought it! Not exactly Joe six-pack or Soccer Mom ....that woud be Target,Wal-mart,Pennys or Sears.....it's called being out of touch!
The angry Left's favorite piñata is Sarah Palin. As far as liberals are concerned, Palin can do no right just as Barack Obama and Joe Biden can do no wrong.
Earlier today, several people sent me a scanned copy of an "afternoon snack" check that Mrs. Obama ran up at the Waldorf-Astoria. Her signature is on it. It included lobster, a bottle of champagne and one or two other things for a grand total of nearly $500. And notice that the room service cartage alone is $68, Here it is:
I have the same thoughts about her snack bill as I have about Governor Palin's wardrobe costs.
If that hotel bill is being paid by Senator and Mrs. Obama, it's nobody's business but theirs. If it's being paid from Democratic campaign funds, it's nobody's business but 1) those who contributed to that fund and 2) those who approved the expense to be paid by the campaign.
No one has opined it was being paid by any governmental taxing body.
The same is true for Governor Palin's wardrobe. We know that the campaign is paying for those clothes, so it is being paid from private funds, not taxpayer funds, and the campaign managers are approving the expenditures.
So the bottom line is if you are like me and have not contributed a dime to either campaign, how the campaign money is being spent is none of our business.
If Mrs. Obama stayed at a Manhattan Motel 6 and had her afternoon snack at the Denny's next door, we'd never hear the end of it.
If Governor Palin bought her clothes at Stein Mart and Sears, critics would say that was empirical evidence that she is too common, ill-bred and countrified to be representing the US as vice president.
President Clinton was very dogmatic on Larry King's program a few weeks ago. He said he thought all of this nit-picking criticism was far below the dignity of a presidential campaign, and he urged everyone to stop it.
I think President Clinton was exactly, precisely correct.
Jennifer--
I love your comparison to a pinata. Thanks for writing that.
HI Bill!
I just love your history! I have learned and enjoyed so much since "tuning in" to you! I have never understood the clothing issue. Can you imagine what our luggage would look like if we were away for the number of days any politician is? I bet they are better at it then we would be!
Thank you, Miss Paula.
The irony is that with all of this junk I seem to carry around in my brain, other than Patty, my friends and my faith, it is my only wealth.
Bill, you are a very rich man!
I hate the way they treated Sarah on the wardrobe.....absolutely crazy!
Thanks to all of you for your comments on the Sarah Palin wardrobe homemade controversy.
The press has really bullied this woman. Whether or not she's qualified to be the vice president, it is highly unfair to see how many totally irrelevant criticisms can be advanced in an attempt to taint her character.
I have an intense dislike of bullies.
Bill,
All of this controversy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe is absurd, every campaign and presidential candidate over the years, have had monies spent on their image prior to, during and through election time. This is just another unnecessary attack and I think that I like to give Americans better credit than to believe any of the hysteria! By the looks of the reciept, Michelle Obama is living large too!
Bill,
It makes no difference what the facts are. The press has it's own agenda and the lemmings buy it!
God help us, because Obama and the majority of the Democrats won't!
Bill
Michelle and William J, thanks for your comments. The press has been unusually mean this go around.
I'm cancelling my many-year subscription to The New Yorker for that very reason. I never subscribed to that magazine for the purpose of hearing their ranting and raving about politics -- whatever side the management and staff are on at the time. They have been relentless.
Bill
I just wonder why the McCain / Palin Campaign didn't raise the point that they were pumping money into our weakened, depressed retail economy: I'm sure a midwestern market like St. Louis (Bill you have a special connection to the city, and I spent my recent undergrad years at our alma mater in University City / Clayton) is suffering quite a lot these days, so I'm sure those trips to Neimans + Sacks out at Plaza Frontenac made those retailer's day. While I'm initially shocked at the amount of money spent, I am more disappointed on exactly where it was spent--seems like they only shopped at very large retailers, leaving out the small business owners they claim to champion.
I realize Political Campaigns are extraordinarily expensive, as a rule. But I've had just about enough of this "average American" talk: the average american does not spend such large amounts of money on clothing, makeup, or running for political office. Neither candidate, nor running mate, is average in any way.
I'm sure if we tracked every penny spent by the respective political campaigns, we would all be appalled at the amounts spent on various "miscellaneous" expenses--especially when our economy is in such poor shape, with effects reaching across the economic spectrum.
Bill... your story about the Lobster Dinner is intersting, yet false... check out this link. It states that the bill appears to be 10/16/08 at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City, at 4:04 in the afternoon... and at that time, Michelle Obama was giving a speech in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/roomservice.asp
All this mud, slung back and forth, only serves to sully those throwing it... both Republican and Democrat. Snopes.com, or factcheck.org is an excellent place to "vet" all of these internet stories, prior to spreading them.
p.s. if you look closely at "michelle's signature" on the receipt, you can see that it's not only similar.. but PRECISELY the same in both locations. While a person's signature may be very similar each time they write it, it's almost impossible for it to be exact. Someone has simply scanned a signature, and copied and pasted it in place... twice.
btw... I should point out, that I'm a democrat, and I have zero problem with them having spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe. It's no different than hiring a makeup person, or a stager, or a PR person for her many public appearances. She has to look good, and I have to admit they've done a wonderful job on her appearance.
Bill - It has been widely reported that the expenditure for her clothing is in violation of the campaign finance act.
Alan, I sometimes wonder how accurate Snoops is. Like those who write the Wikipedia stuff, they and their personal credentials are not revealed.
Nevertheless, whether it's a Walforf bill, one for clothes, one for a ski trip or whatever, I feel confident that there are tit-for-tats that could be, as my mom used to say, "until the cows come home."
With respect to the clothes violation that Alan reported, if that's what it is, then all someone has to do is to make a personal gift to her to reimburse the campaign fund. Again, this is silliness.
None of this junk should worry any of us. What should worry us, though, are the campaign finance rules that allow campaign donations from those who are not US citizens. Outsiders have no business whatsoever being allowed to cause any influence on our country' elections with gifts or money in-kind.
It's not uncommon for some to question snopes.com validity... here's how they respond:
http://www.snopes.com/info/faq.asp
"We don't expect anyone to accept up as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves."
And of course, you could try factcheck.org which lists the journalist they use for their reference and research.
btw: the sources that snopes used for this particular report were the New York Post, Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Sun-Times & the Associated Press, which reported on her speech in Fort Wayne. It seems it would be rather simple to confirm where Michelle Obama was on this particular day.
And it should be noted... I was NOT the one who reported on wardrobe-gate... it was brought up in many posts prior to mine... I simply said I though it was a tempest in a tea kettle.
Thanks to all, especially to Elvis.
Bill
Hello Bill,
I love your story! It explains why Sarah Palin needed the clothes that the RNC purchased for her and will ultimately donate at the end of the campaign. The media is so obsessed with smearing this hardworking woman that they are making a mountain out of a molehill! What does Obama pay for his rock star suits?
I am waiting for the October surprise!!!
All the Best,
Caren
Thanks to all, especially to Elvis.
awwwww shucks... it t'werent' nuthin'
I think they have been so unfair to Sara! Can't we all...just get along?
Hi Bill... I always enjoy your posts. Your perspective is always thought provoking and presented in an entertaining manner. I agree with President Clinton, the clothes purchases and room service bill forgery is beneath the dignity of a presidential campaign. However, at least in my opinion, Sarah Palin has been about the most negative and accusational player in this entire campaign and as my Dad always said, if you are going to sling mud around, you better expect to get dirty yourself.
Steve, thanks for the compliments and let's get this out right now: Your dad made a great deal of sense. I agree with him, that's for sure.
I like old Sarah, probably because I dated a girl a long time ago who was pretty much like her, and boy did she keep me on my toes. Her brain ran circles around mine. Probably why I threw in the towel. A macho response on my part, for sure.
But when I started out to write this post, my primary intent was to say that all of this petty junk probably has good reason if all the facts are known, and even if it doesn't, in the scheme of things what the devil difference does it make?
Like most of you, I get "gotcha" emails everyday pointing out one thing or another about the candidates and they are meant to influence the reader's vote. I zaaapppp them as soon as I read the title.
All the makeover that Gov Palin had enhanced her appearance even more, in Michelle's case--not so much.
Since the talk is about trivial stuff and Elvis...
Yolanda,
I think Michelle's softened look was a good idea. I think allowing the TV camera to photograph with a rear view is a bad idea. Man......
Bill
Wardrobes and lobster dinners. Each side is desperate to paint the other side as evil. Palin needed clothes--agreed (but did she have to blow so much on Neiman Marcus top stuff)? She'd certainly have scored bigger at Target or a department store--in the public's mind.
Movie stars borrow designer dresses and diamonds from Harry Winston to go to the Academy Awards. They don't cost them a dime, and they don't get to keep them.
Sarah Palin's party paid for her wardrobe. They belong to the party, and are to be donated to charity after the election is over. How did Ms. Palin unfairly benefit?
Clothes from Target for her would have only been appropriate had Messrs. Obama, Biden and McCain picked theirs up off of the rack at J.C. Pennys, and then sent them to Goodwill after the election.
The underlying point of all of this is that it's no one's business.