Seemingly with each passing day, General Stanley McChrystal grows in the esteem of President Obama's conservative foes. After having savaged General Eric Shinseki for his pre-Iraq war testimony that the occupation would require "several hundreds of thousands" of American troops, Republicans have seized on McChrystal's public demands for more forces in Afghanistan as their latest battering ram to bludgeon Obama on national security. And as it turns out, McChrystal's inadvertent leak earlier this month regarding a classified CIA analysis puts him in the same company as Republicans John Boehner, Pete Hoekstra, Pat Roberts and, of course, Dick Cheney.

McChrystal in his leaked report and unprecedented public speech in London has put tremendous pressure on President Obama to quadruple the Bush-era commitment to the Afghan conflict. General McChrystal didn't merely announce that short of deploying as many as 60,000 more troops, the U.S. effort in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure." He also set out to demolish straw man alternatives to his escalated counterinsurgency plan, including:

"A paper has been written that recommends that we use a plan called 'Chaosistan', and that we let Afghanistan become a Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside."

But as Newsweek reported, that "paper" to which General McChrystal casually referred is almost surely a classified CIA assessment:

Two U.S. intelligence officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive matter, say that the reference almost certainly comes from a recently published, and secret, CIA analysis titled "Chaosistan" (not "Chaostan"). Prepared by a "red team" of CIA analysts, the document, says one official, picks apart conventional analyses of the war and explains how forces inside Afghanistan--from hostile ethnic groups to intrusive neighbors to societal damage caused by past Taliban rule--work against the notions of a central Afghan government. The paper is not quite the policy proposal McChrystal implied it was, say the officials, since intelligence analysts don't generally recommend policy options.

Of course, the same Republican voices which lauded the leak of McChrystal's report and his UK grandstanding will doubtless remain silent now. Because while many in the GOP called for the prosecution of those behind the publication of the NSA domestic surveillance story, they themselves selectively leaked classified national security information for partisan political purposes.

Continue reading »

Turning to Sarah Palin to explain the international economy and the role of government is like asking a dog why it likes to lick its rear end. But as an audience of investors and fund managers learned today in Hong Kong, Palin's cartoon-quality conservative platitudes don't merely fly in the face of the consensus of economic analysts. As a flashback to her catastrophic interview with Katie Couric reveals, Sarah Palin doesn't even agree with herself.

Palin's rewriting of history begins with the causes of the global economic meltdown. While the villains behind the calamity are many (see, for example, Time and the New York Times' excellent series, "The Reckoning"), for Sarah Palin there is only one. As the Wall Street Journal summed up her closed-door remarks:

"We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place," the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. "We're not interested in government fixes, we're interested in freedom," she added.

Of course, those "government fixes" were not only badly need to stem the financial crisis, they've already paid huge dividends in reversing the slide of American gross domestic product (GDP), refilling empty state coffers and preserving up to a million jobs. As the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal put it three weeks ago:

"Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus."

And during the 2008 campaign, then Governor Palin agreed about the need for government intervention. In her own confused and incoherent way, Palin defended to Katie Couric one year ago this week the kind of government bailouts she now decries. The benefits from $700 billion plan she and running John McCain endorsed, she insisted, all fall "under the umbrella of job creation."

"Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy- Helping the -- Oh, it's got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans."

Continue reading »

Maybe the gun-toting teabaggers excited Michael Steele and his fellow Republicans, but the travel wizard was not impressed and is canceling any future plans for going to McCain's home state.

Around The World Blog:

He's not advocating a boycott of Arizona (yet) but he does say that he's "shocked beyond measure by reports that earlier this week, nearly a dozen persons, including one with an assault rifle strapped about his shoulders and others with pistols in their hands or holsters, were openly congregating outside a hall at which President Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars."

Who is Arthur Frommer?

Arthur Frommer (born 1929) is a travel writer, publisher and consumer advocate, and the founder of the Frommer's series of travel guides and Arthur Frommer's Budget Travel[1] magazine. He has published many books for budget-conscious travelers and has been one of America's foremost budget travel authorities since the 1950s. Frommer's seminal book, Europe on 5 Dollars a Day, changed the way Americans traveled, and foreshadowed such later budget-conscious guidebooks as Lonely Planet and Rick Steves

.
What he says carries a lot of weight, and you can bet Arizona officials are freaked out by his opinion on this matter.

Here's what he said.

I am not yet certain whether I would advocate a travel boycott by others of the state of Arizona; I want to learn more about Arizona's gun laws and how they compare with those of other states. But I am shocked beyond measure by reports that earlier this week, nearly a dozen persons, including one with an assault rifle strapped about his shoulders and others with pistols in their hands or holsters, were openly congregating outside a hall at which President Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

According to the Phoenix, Arizona, police, if Ronald Reagan were delivering a political talk in Phoenix, Arizona, would they have felt it was proper for protesters with guns to mill about outside the hall from which he would leave?

I'd appreciate hearing your comments. The question is, should we all organize a travel boycott of Arizona until this tolerance of armed intimidation is ended, probably by an act of the Arizona legislature? People with guns, including assault rifles, do not need permits in Arizona, but can simply carry such weapons with them, openly and brazenly, when they gather to protest a speaker at a public event. The police also acknowledge that about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 assault rifle, milled about outside the event at which President Obama spoke.

Wow. Frommer is actually thinking of a full scale travel boycott of Arizona.

John McCain tries to act like the Czar of world security, but his home state is scaring the bejeezus out of people. He's an election loser, health-care-reform denier, but a favorite of the Sunday talk-show circuit.

You'd think a senator would at least speak up. But, being Republican, what he'll probably do is call Arthur Frommer a liberal or something.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1400)

PLAYS: (2244)

It was a busy weekend in the political spotlight for John McCain. On Friday, the man with 13 cars announced he would oppose the wild popular "cash for clunkers" program before claiming on Sunday that President Obama had failed the test of bipartisanship.

But it was his Wall Street Journal interview with editor Stephen Moore which may have been the most fascinating part of McCain's weekend. Fascinating, that is, as a study of revisionist history and selective amnesia by both men. While Moore now praises McCain as "one of the lead critics of Obamanomics," in the past the former Club for Growth president groused his organization's members "loathe" McCain. As for the ersatz maverick, McCain blamed the economic crisis and media bias rather than his own serial flip-flopping and miserable campaign for his defeat at the polls.

For his part, Moore skipped over his past animus towards the Arizona Senator. After all, in 2004, he announced, "We don't like McCain at all." The anti-tax, laissez faire Club for Growth tried, but did not find, what Moore deemed "a true, Reagan conservative" to oppose McCain in his '04 GOP primary. As last year's presidential primaries approached, the Club blasted McCain's opposition to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, comparing him to "the likes of Ted Kennedy in his rhetorical attacks."

But when candidate McCain reversed course and backed making the Bush tax cuts permanent, Moore in March 2007 threw his support behind the born-again supply sider:

"I think John McCain, if he can get to the general election, he has a great chance of being president, especially if he's up against somebody like Hillary Clinton."

Of course, things didn't turn out that way. But to hear John McCain tell it, very little of what transpired was his fault.

For openers, he insisted, last fall's collapsing economy dealt him a losing hand:

He believes that he could have won the election had it not been for the market collapse in mid-September. "We were three points up on September 14. The next day the market lost 700 points and $1.2 trillion in wealth vanished, and by the end of the day we were seven points down. We lost the white college graduate voters, who became profoundly disillusioned with Republicans. And by the way, that was the way it ended up. We lost by seven points."

In reality, it was McCain's self-professed, self-evident ignorance on matters economic which undermined his credibility with voters. After all, McCain like his friend and adviser Phil Gramm called the recession "psychological" and prescribed eBay as the cure for what ailed the economy. On the very September day the market plummeted, McCain pronounced, "fundamentals of our economy are strong," the 18th time during the '08 campaign he had done so.

Continue reading »

I’ve only recently joined the Twitterati, http://twitter.com/nonnythemouse and not being the most technologically proficient of folks, accidently hit the ‘yes’ button to something that obviously must have read, ‘you don’t have any friends, you loser, so how about adding these twenty random people to your contact list?’ One of them, for some unfathomable reason, was Senator John McCain. I’ve managed to pare down my ‘friends’ list to… well… mostly actual friends, but I’ve kept Sen. McCain on the list out of the same morbid curiosity that has me reading Red State’s emailed newsletter on a regular basis.

This morning, my Twitter box had a tweet (give me a break, I’m still learning the slang!) from Sen. McCain which said, ‘Vote on my amendment to eliminate $6 mill in wasteful govt subsidy to private bus companies for GPS systems - need to stop wasteful spending.’

Hmmm… thought I. Let’s go see what this is all about.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1575)

PLAYS: (5265)

The latest step in Minutemen cofounder Chris Simcox's extreme makeover is now up for electoral review: Simcox is challenging John McCain in the Arizona 2010 GOP primary.

For starters, there's going to be all that footage available of Simcox when he was in his full-on Minuteman phase, including footage like that above -- excerpts from filmmaker Nikolaj Vijborg's excellent short documentary, USA Under Attack, containing the following quotes from Simcox:

I feel that the people that are coming across, invading this country, I think that they should be treated as enemies of the state. We need to putting them in work camps. Anyone could walk through these borders of this country bringing bombs, chemicals, weapons of mass destruction. I think they should be shot on sight, personally.

Those guys [D.C. politicians] need to be, you know, lynched. If we're attacked again, then we need some vigilanteism. Then we need some going into Washington, pulling them out of their offices, kicking them out of office. We need revolution.

And then there was his Minuteman compatriot in this video, Craig Howard:

No, we ought to be able to shoot the Mexicans on sight, and that would end the problem. After two or three Mexicxans are shot, they'll stop crossing the border and they'll take their cows home, too.

Stephen Lemon at Phoenix New Times is positively licking his chops, since Simcox's candidacy will make for an entertaining primary, if nothing else: "This must be what reporters in Louisiana felt like when ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke ran against Edwin Edwards for Governor of the Pelican State."

Moreover, Simcox has so much baggage that you can probably count on a good deal of ink being spilled over the job of dredging it all up:

But this sort of calculated posturing will not rid him of all the baggage he's accumulated in his weird journey from L.A. kindergarten teacher to self-avowed border patriot in Cochise County, and now Scottsdale resident and seeker of public office. He is widely loathed in his own movement for his high-handedness, hence the nickname, "The Little Prince." Defectors from his ranks have regularly accused him of financial shenanigans, shenanigans he's denied. According to the few financial records MCDC has online, Simcox draws no salary from the organization he leads, which raises the question as to the source of his personal income.

Simcox cannot write off these complaints and questions as coming from sore losers, traitors and plotters of internal coups. In 2006, the conservative Washington Times published a stinging expose about Simcox's lack of financial accountability as president of MCDC. The article pointed out that former MCDC-ers were "questioning the whereabouts of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in donations."

Then there's the problem of his criminal record. In 2004 Simcox was convicted in U.S. District Court of carrying a semi-automatic handgun onto a national park, and giving a "false or fictitious report" to a federal park ranger about the incident. He received 24 months of supervised probation and a fine of $1,000. The gun carrying stuff might play well with his followers, but his conviction for giving a "false or fictitious report" could raise concerns about Simcox's credibility.

A piece I wrote for The American Prospect last October exposed these dealings in even greater detail:

Continue reading »

From Salon's War Room, this little tidbit from A.B. Culvahouse, the lawyer who led McCain's vice-presidential vetting process:

One other interesting point from Culvahouse's talk: Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, a prominent supporter of McCain's during the campaign, was apparently a serious contender for the vice-presidential nod. But, because Lieberman is not a registered Republican, there would have been legal issues in some states.

"Five states have sore loser statutes... [making] it very difficult for someone who's not a member of the Republican Party to become the vice presidential nominee if they only switch parties to become a Republican shortly before the convention," Culvahouse said, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin. "So you were looking at going to the Supreme Court, which is not particularly appetizing."

We wrote a lot about John McCain's temper during the election, but this latest one is a doozy.

“He was angry,” one source said. “He was over the top. In some cases, he rolled his eyes a lot. There were portions of the meeting where he was just staring at the ceiling, and he wasn’t even listening to us. We came out of the meeting really upset.”

McCain’s message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama’s pace on the issue. “He threw out [the words] ‘You people — you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,’ ” the source said. “It was almost as if [he was saying] ‘You’re cut off!’ We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that.”

The idea that when he said that "you people" were just voters who didn't back him rings very hollow. His intent was quite clear. If you brown people would have backed me--I would have won the election. There were a lot of people that didn't back McCain for the election and losing his temper just shows how unhinged these privileged men in power actually are. He did push the Bush immigration deal, but you know it was just response to the anger many Latinos felt overSensenbrenner's HOUSE bill.

But, as National Journal notes, “one person’s straight talk is another person’s vitriol”:

But one person’s straight talk is another person’s vitriol. “My hands were shaking,” one source said. “I was nervous as no-end.” The senator’s comments went on for several minutes at least. And by the end of the meeting, another participant, who had supported McCain in last year’s presidential election, was so shaken by the display of temper that he decided it is good that McCain isn’t in the White House.

Digby writes:

I think one of the things I find most reprehensible about the Republican Party and their Big Money backers is that they think it's OK to play Russian Roulette with the country (and the world) by nominating people to power who have completely inappropriate temperaments for it. George W. Bush, with his thin skinned, shallow understanding of the world, bottomless need for flattery, is a good case in point.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't McCain lose the election? And the major reason was because of his nonexistent economic skills so why would people care? The best political team wants to know.

He's waiting to see how the field unfolds.

Maybe he's waiting to see if Joe the Plumber will be her running mate.

And Howdy Doody Jindal joined the "I want Obama to fail" club. I assume he received a nice little cap with big mouse ears from RushBo for joining up.

As the New York Times revealed Monday, President Obama has instructed administration officials not to rely on the hundreds of signing statements issued by his predecessor. That move should please John McCain. After all, the Republican presidential candidate not only pledged "never to issue a signing statement." Back in 2005, McCain was doubled-crossed when President Bush issued a signing statement effectively negating the Detainee Treatment Act he authored.

In his Times piece, Charlie Savage (who earlier won a Pulitzer Prize while at the Boston Globe for breaking the signing statement story) reported that President Obama "ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute." Obama's worry is well-founded. After all, in number and nature, George W. Bush's use of signing statements to skirt laws passed by Congress is simply unprecedented:

Mr. Bush frequently used signing statements to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, claiming that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a torture ban and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counter-terrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.

Dating back to the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. Presidents began doing so more frequently starting with the Reagan administration.

But Mr. Bush broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 bill sections over his eight years in office -- about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

But while President Obama did not today or during the 2008 presidential campaign foreswear the use of signing statement, his opponent did. In November 2007, John McCain announced:

"I would never issue a signing statement. It is wrong, and it should not be done."

McCain's unequivocal stand isn't just a matter of principle; it's quite personal. After all, when it came to the torture of terror detainees, George W. Bush stabbed John McCain in the back using the stiletto of a signing statement.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (107)

PLAY (121)

...The media elites would be calling him an obstructionist, a sore loser, a man and party with no new ideas and someone who will not listen to the will of the people after they had spoken on Nov. 4th.
Instead CBS framed their story like this: "Change? McCain Says Dems Are Just Like GOP":

Schieffer began his interview with a question likely on many people's minds, asking the Arizona senator how he has gotten right back to work after a devastating presidential election loss.

"I think the best cure for defeat, as hard as it may be, is to get back in the arena,” McCain said. "I love what we do in the Senate. I'm honored to serve. I am honored to represent the people of Arizona and have some voice in major crises we face both at home and abroad. So best cure, I am happy to be back and I am happy to be back on this program.”

Um, are McCain's feelings after losing an election the big question on people's minds? I think the stimulus package is the focus of the country right now, don't you? The fact that McCain was almost holding his breath until he turned blue Friday night and has led a campaign against Obama's stimulus plan all week might be more interesting to the people. Schieffer could have asked something like, "As I'm sure you know you lost the election. Senator McCain, you look like you're acting almost childish in your opposition. Don't you think it hurts your Mavericky reputation to carry on like you have? And what does it say about the Republican party as well?"

Instead, he tries to reason with McCain, when that's not the political strategy the GOP is taking. McCain, like most of the Republican Party, is being led by Rush Limbaugh now. So sad indeed. David wrote a good post about McCain on Sunday.

DOWNLOAD (107)

PLAY (121)

Remember how a couple of weeks ago everyone was writing about how the vanquished John McCain was going to be Barack Obama's best Republican buddy in the Senate and help pave the way for a new era of senatorial bipartisanship?

Well, et tu, McNasty: He's now leading the charge against Obama's stimulus plan in the Senate. He went on CBS today and explained why:

Schieffer: You have emerged as the main opponent of the President's economic recovery plan. ... But I want to ask you, now that you have made your point, do you intend to support this plan, because I think economists on all sides of this say something has got to be done here.

McCain: Well, I can't, Bob. And I can't because I think it's the greatest transfer of not only spending but authority and responsibility to government. I think it's massive, it's much larger than any measure that was taken during the Great Depression. I think it has policy changes in it which are fundamentally bad for America. For instance, there are 'Buy America' provisions -- that's protectionism. It didn't work at any time in our history.

But most of all, because I think this can only be described as generational theft. What we are doing is amassing multi-trillions of dollars -- if you look at what's going to be announced Monday or Tuesday, a new TARP -- we've already spent $700 billion, another how many have you trillion --

Shieffer: This is aid to the banks --

McCain: Yes. Then we're going to have a supplemental to pay for the war. We're going to have what we call a continuing resolution -- another $400 billion. We're going to have already a $1.2 trillion deficit by estimates and it's just begun. We're going to amass the largest debt in the history of this country by any measurement and we're going to ask our kids and grandkids to pay for it.

So I thought we needed -- I know we're in trouble, I know America needs a stimulus, we need tax cuts, we need to spend money on infrastructure and on other programs that will put people immediately to work. But this is not it.

In other words, Republicans' idea of a "bipartisan bill" is a "Republican bill". That is to say, just more of the same old crap that got us in this mess in the first place.

Yeah, that's some bipartisanship.

But McCain also makes it clear he thinks that Democrats have to completely bend over -- or, as Rush would put it, "grab the ankles" -- to make bipartisanship work. On Planet GOP -- where the rampant fear in fact is what will happen to them if Obama succeeds -- the failure of bipartisanship has nothing, no nothing, to do with Republican ideological rigidity. It's all the Dems' fault:

Well, I think from the beginning, when the Speaker of the House said, 'We won so we're writing the bill,' that set the stage. It was put through both House and Senate without serious, fundamental, at-the-beginning discussions and negotiations with Republicans. Democrat staffers, as we speak, started last night -- and by the way, we just got the bill last night at 11 o'clock, 778 pages -- they're negotiating now. They will come up with a bill, but unfortunately Republicans will not be involved in those negotiations. And I regret that.

In the interest of full disclosure, that's the way the Bush administration, when we were in charge, that's the way we did business. But I thought we were going to have change. And that change meant that we worked together. This is a setback. This is a setback for all Americans, in my view, because we promised, all of us, that we would work together in a more bipartisan, inclusive fashion, and that's certainly not been the case with this bill. And I regret that deeply.

If he weren't being so obviously disingenuous, one could just assume that Republicans like McCain don't realize that the kind of complete rewriting of the established rules of congressional governance he proposes aren't going to happen overnight -- Democrats aren't going to just set aside their well-earned positions of power and let Republicans start writing their stimulus plan. Republicans have to demonstrate they are trustworthy enough partners in making an effective change.

And what they actually just proved is that they aren't. They still are unable to put their narrow ideological interests above the national well-being, to actually take the ample opportunities to work with Democrats that Obama has given them and do something with them.

Instead, all we've gotten is "I hope he fails" and "porkulus." For which they have earned their seat in the back row of the room for many weeks and months to come.

DOWNLOAD (47)

PLAY (81)

It didn't take long for Barack Obama's bipartisan buddies to obstruct his first big plan to help our desperate country. On FNS this morning, John McCain said that he would not vote for the stimulus package that would try to breath life into our suffocating economy which is suffering because of the conservatives that just lost the election.

WALLACE: Let's talk about the economy. We'll get to national security in a moment. The president is pushing an economic stimulus package of $825 billion that raises some of the issues that were at the heart of your campaign against Barack Obama. $275 billion in tax breaks, including money for people who don't pay income taxes. $550 billion in spending, including $200 million to resod the national mall, $360 million to fight sexually transmitted disease. As that package now stands, can john McCain vote for it?

McCAIN: No. We need to make tax cuts permanent and need to make a commitment that they'll be no new taxes. We need to cut payroll taxes. We need to cut business taxes. We need to have a commitment that after a couple of quarters of GDP growth that we will embark on a path to reduce spending to get our budget in balance. We're going to lay an additional $2 trillion of debt on future Americans. Is there going to be a point where foreign countries such as the Chinese stop buying our debt? Look, we've got to eliminate the unnecessary spending. There's got to be some kind of litmus as to whether it will really stimulate the economy and whether it will in the short term. Some of the stimulus in this package is excellent. Some of it has nothing to do -- those projects and others you mentioned -- six billion for broadband Internet access. That will take years. There should be an end point to all of this spending as well. Say two years. If we need to stimulate the economy in a short period of time, let's enact those provisions --

WALLACE: You're talking about a major rewrite as it now stands.

McCAIN: The plan was written by a Democratic majority in the house primarily. So, yeah, I think there has to be major rewrites if we want to stimulate the economy.

WALLACE as it stands, you'd vote against it?

McCAIN: Look, I am opposed to most of the provisions in the bill. As it stands now, I would not support it.

The Republican fetish for tax cuts is astounding. Doesn't McCain remember that the American people rejected his "tax cut" mentality when he lost the election? I'm actually glad that Republicans are acting this way. The more they obstruct him the better it is because hopefully it will push him to be less inclusive with the people that have almost destroyed this country. The American people will not stand for it this early in his term. I've written many times that Obama should not appease them to get things done. They may pay lip service to Obama because he won, but they want him to fail.

But they underestimate the power of his bully pulpit. If he goes on air and tells the country he tried to work with the Republicans but they refused to do the things he deems necessary to kick start this economy, it will resonate and they will pay another huge price. So, keep at it boys and girls. Obstruct away.

When it was revealed in October that the Republican National Committee spent a whopping $180,000 on new clothes for Sarah Palin and her family, the McCain/Palin campaign promised that all the clothes would be donated to charity after Election Day. (McCain said on October 26 that 1/3 of the clothes had already been returned). Well, according to the NewMajority website, the clothes are sitting in trash bags at RNC headquarters in D.C.

New Majority:

But for reasons that remain mysterious, the clothes remain stashed at the RNC's Washington, D.C., headquarters. A source close to the issue told NewMajority that the clothes are "in the process" of being donated, and an RNC spokesman corroborated, saying the clothes have indeed been returned from Palin, "inventoried and will be appropriately dispersed to various charities." Attempts for an explanation of when and where the clothes will be donated went unanswered, and the governor's Alaska office does not comment on campaign issues.

The fact that the clothes have not been donated or publicly accounted for, however, has angered some big donors - who want to know exactly how their money was spent, and who are already enraged by the extravagant wardrobe figure. They say it's time for the RNC to air its dirty laundry, if you will.

This should really come as no surprise, being that we're talking about the disastrous McCain/Palin campaign. I just never thought that we would still be hearing stories like this three months after the election. Sheesh. Looks like those RNC lawyers dispatched to Alaska to retrieve Palin's clothes forgot to "donate" them.