Everyone knows that print journalism is in a state of economic crisis, and Sam Boyd may have the answer -- a GQ/CQ merger to produce your ultimate guide to men's fashion and legislative arcana. Lord knows congress could probably use more fashion advice.
« Bad Incentives | Main | No Deal »
The Solution
13 Jun 2008 09:47 am
Comments (11)
The British House of Commons is historically worse the Congress (part of some whole "we're commoners so we can't dress right" shtick, I guess) ... but lately, they've improved their fashion sense.
Do we really want to see 500 guys in slate grey mock turtlenecks posing on the capital steps?
DAS, at least in the House of Commons, they're wearing drab but common clothes. In Congress, the sartorial mindset is, "spend a lot of money to look like crap" -- the sartorial equivalent of the $35 cheeseburger sold at Jack Abramoff's restaurant.
Just what this country needs -- an even more superficial Congress.
Like Woody Allen's proposed merger between Dissent and Commentary.
DAS, at least in the House of Commons, they're wearing drab but common clothes. In Congress, the sartorial mindset is, "spend a lot of money to look like crap" -- the sartorial equivalent of the $35 cheeseburger sold at Jack Abramoff's restaurant. - Tyro
I dunno ... for a while the House of Commons folk were dressing like American Used Car Dealers -- common, maybe, but hardly drab.
But I agree with you on Congress. Also, what is with the fashion sense of our Presnit and First Lady? At least nowadays the Presnit has finally got suits which fit him.
When Nixon's suits bunched up like that, you could understand it: Nixon couldn't afford anything fancier than (in today's dollars) a $200 suit with $75 worth of tailoring. But GW Bush has money: he can afford a few nice suits. Were the crappy suits an homage to Nixon? Or were they part of the "guy you could have a beer with" strategy? Whatever, I thought it left a very bad impression of our country. I know if I were President, my mother would tell me "nu? take some of you fancy, new $200K/year [or however much it is] salary and spend it on a bespoke suit or two ... I know it seems like a frivolous waste of money, but, nu? you should look the part and not be a shanda for the other countries when you visit them".
I guess this is why we don't have Jewish presidents? Too elitist?
I know if I were President, my mother would tell me "nu? take some of your fancy, new $200K/year [or however much it is] salary and spend it on a bespoke suit or two.
That's exactly what Bush does. He's paying thousands for Oxxford and Georges de Paris suits to look that crappy. And those awful ties!
When you're spending all that money to look "like the guy you could have a beer with," it's clear you've missed the mark. On the other hand, it's what everyone else in DC does. One of the reasons Pelosi got so much attention for her Armani suits was not because, price-wise, they were more extravagant than typical DC-fare. It was because they were actually stylish and fit well, unlike the overpriced stuff everyone else in DC wears.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find mock turtlenecks in any style magazine.
The staffers need more help than the elected officials. Everyone in that town either delegates clothing selection to brooks brothers (whether or not they have the girth, but if they do, it's brooks brothers' a size too small) or dress like they're straight from Greek life at an S.E.C. school, which may or may not be accurate.
Bush actually has expensive suits -- from Oxxford, I think -- but he just doesn't have any sense of personal style, and there's nothing you can do about that. (They also look to be cut a little big.) GQ's style guy is on the record as favoring orange jumpsuits for him, btw.
As for the most-maligned fashion choice -- Clinton's pantsuits -- let me say that the problem is not the pantsuit, or even the cut, but the fact that she asked for our votes while wearing pastels in February. But since the primary is over, let us turn our scorn to John McCain's appalling taste in neckties.
Not a big deal, the National Review has been Tiger Beat for republicans for years...
"When Nixon's suits bunched up like that, you could understand it: "
The suits fit fine, the truth is, Nixon bunched up like that.
Comments closed June 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
At his blog Felix Salmon mentioned Alfonso Serrano's idea that the NYT offer stock to subscribers.
I think a mutual media company is a great idea for the reasons he mentions.
Posted by crack | June 13, 2008 10:04 AM