January 28, 2005

A Disrespectful Ski Parka?

There are not many days that I'll leap to the defense of Dick Cheney, but as criticisms of the Vice President go, bashing his wardrobe seems a rather picayune matter.

Posted by armand at January 28, 2005 12:48 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics


Comments

i wholeheartedly disagree. international relations and diplomacy, two areas in which the current administration is notoriously deficient, are nothing without protocols and formality. i'm no diplomat, but i would no more attend such a sobering and funereal occasion dressed like he was (duck boots!?) than i would wear tails to a baseball game. seriously; i'm embarrassed to see that picture.

Posted by: joshua at January 28, 2005 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

i might add that, based on the photograph, everyone, including lynne, knew better. and i'll bet at least some of them don't travel with protocol officers.

Posted by: joshua at January 28, 2005 01:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sure symbolism matters. But it seems to me that given his health, wrapping him up as warmly as possible and putting him in shoes with traction is a good idea if he's going to have to sit out in the snow for awhile. Now could they have come up with a better warm outfit? Absolutely. He looks rather silly. But I don't believe black suits need to be the official attire of officialdom for the rest of recorded history.

Posted by: Armand at January 28, 2005 01:03 PM | PERMALINK

It's just tacky. He looks like he's going to a football game. If his health is that bad, bag out and send someone else. I agree on the balck quit in general, but this was Auschwitz, people.

Posted by: binky at January 28, 2005 01:44 PM | PERMALINK

there are a lot of alternatives between leather-soled english wingtips and duck boots; a lot of alternatives between a black wool overcoat and a coat with fake white fur around its hood -- its hood -- and there's a big difference between all of officialdom and what i correctly characterized as the "funereal" event here in question.

and here's the lurking underbelly of the question i only hinted at: there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that someone in his entourage, and probably lynne as well, pointed out the inappropriateness of his attire to the occasion. this is the four-year vice president of the united states, a man who has hung around the halls of executive power for something like thirty years no; no stranger to formality. in the face of the advice i'm entirely certain he received, he had to have crinkled his nose, scowled, and decided he didn't give a rat's ass what shirac et al. thought. and it's that that disturbs me most, and surprises me least.

the bottom line is this: if i had the unlimited money and access he has to shop for clothing, i could make myself warmer than he is in that photo with entirely appropriate and somber clothing. as did everyone else there, many of whom are old, some of whom surely have ongoing health problems. so i don't buy any of the submitted excuses on his behalf.

Posted by: joshua at January 28, 2005 02:21 PM | PERMALINK

wasn't it bitterly cold for the inaugural? why didn't he wear his practical health-conscious outfit then?

Posted by: joshua at January 28, 2005 02:29 PM | PERMALINK

i can't believe i misspelled chirac. i obviously have no credibility whatsoever. disregard everything i've said.

Posted by: joshua at January 28, 2005 02:33 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?