Sarah Palin is countering the $150,000 wardrobe story by saying the clothes are not her property.
“Those clothes, they are not my property. Just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC purchased, I’m not taking them with me. I am back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska. You’d think â€” not that I would even have to address the issue because, as Elisabeth is suggesting, the double standard here it’s â€” gosh, we don’t even want to waste our time.”
Palin, however, forged on.
“I am glad, though, that she brought up accessories also. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of accessories, didn’t think that we would be talking about it, but my earrings â€” I see a Native Americans for Palin poster,” she said. “These are beaded earrings from Todd’s mom who is a Yupik Eskimo up in Alaska, Native American, Native Alaskan.
“And my wedding ring, it’s in Todd’s pocket, ’cause it hurts sometimes when I shake hands and it gets squished,” she continued. “A $35 wedding ring from Hawaii that I bought myself and ’cause I always thought with my ring it’s not what it’s made of, it’s what it represents, and 20 years later, happy to wear it. And then finally the other accessory, you bet I’m a gold â€” I’m a blue star mom. I’m wearing this in honor of my son who is fighting over in Iraq right now defending all of you.”
This triggered a dim memory. It took me some time to find it, but this is what Palin reminds me of —
Asking How Sharpton Pays for Those Suits; Case Offers Glimpse of His Finances
By ALAN FEUER
Published: December 21, 2000 [New York Times]
He says he owns no suits, but has ”access” to a dozen or so. He says he owns no television set because the one he watches in his home was purchased by a company he runs. He says he has no checking accounts, no savings accounts, no credit cards, no debit cards, no mutual funds, no stocks, no bonds, no paintings, no antiques. The only thing he admits to owning is a $300 wristwatch and a 20-year-old wedding ring.
The finances of the Rev. Al Sharpton have a somewhat troubled history. He was indicted on charges of income tax fraud and stealing from charitable donors in 1989, but was eventually acquitted at a trial. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to file a tax return for 1986. His eponymous promotional company has no official documents on record with the state. As recently as two years ago, he drew no salary, but he still manages to send his daughters to an expensive and respected private school.
Mr. Sharpton has always been studiously circumspect when talking about his pocketbook in public, yet this month he suddenly announced that he could not afford to pay a judgment entered against him in the Tawana Brawley defamation case. As a result, he gave a lengthy deposition to lawyers for the man that he was found to have defamed, Steven A. Pagones, a former prosecutor whom Mr. Sharpton claimed had raped Ms. Brawley 13 years ago.
The deposition was never made public, though excerpts from it were given to The New York Times by a supporter of Mr. Pagones. It offers a privileged peek into the byzantine world of Mr. Sharpton’s personal finances as he considers running for mayor. In its combative back-and-forth and unintended humor, it sketches a portrait of the fiscal Al Sharpton, a man who claims to own virtually nothing but has almost everything he needs.
Yes, the old “this is not my designer suit even though I’m wearing it” dodge.
See also “Palin’s Nightmare.”