It wasn’t just the $300 for make-up on the presidential campaign trail. Raw Story has done some excellent digging, and has found that Mitt Romney did his part to support the burgeoning make-up industry in Massachusetts, to the tune of almost $2,000 from April of 2002 (when he accepted the nomination at the GOP convention) through early 2006 (when he delivered his last state-of-the-state address).
Sure, he was going on TV on those occasions, and sure, lots of pols put on make-up before going on TV. But dang, at up to $690 a pop, those must have been some serious blemishes that needed professional out-smoothing.
And so the obvious point is this. Of course it’s fine for Romney to pay someone to do his make-up for TV, just like it’s fine for John Edwards to pay someone to cut his hair. The question is whether the amount either Romney or Edwards spent should raise some kind of question. Apparently, Romney thought it did when the issue was Edwards’s haircut. But I have to say that $690 for a TV make-up job sounds pretty hefty.
Here are some of Raw Story’s highlights.
A RAW STORY analysis of Romney’s campaign finance records during his time as Massachusetts governor shows he spent nearly $2,000 on makeup artists over four years. The personal-beautification spending was divided over six sessions to three separate companies. Individual makeup jobs ranged in price from $180 to $690.
After reports emerged in April that Democratic candidate John Edwards spent $400 for a haircut, the media jumped on the story. It was mentioned twice as often as Romney’s makeup work in the days after each story was reported, according to a database search.
Romney himself was quick to join the Edwards-bashing bandwagon, telling Massachusetts reporters that he paid no more than $50 for a trim.
“You know I think John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there is everybody else,” Romney said….
Unlike his presidential campaign’s financial disclosure, which listed the makeup services as “communications consulting,” Romney’s spending during his time as governor was clearly listed as “makeup” in five cases and “professional services” once.
Everyone understands that a politician’s appearance is important, but knowing this and the prices they pay for “grooming” he still decided to take a cheap shot at Edwards hoping to cash in with the GOP. Let sleeping dogs lie (sorry for the dog reference). I have a feeling his cheap shot is going to be more than he bargained for.
“I’m not running as the Republican view, or the continuation of Republican values.” – Mitt Romney
<
p>
“I’m looking for a race to enter” – Willard Mitt
http://www.mormonsto…
I find this particularly ironic considering that his own campaign identified one of his weaknesses as having hair that was “too perfect.” So this guy drops more on makeup than he probably does on books, all the while knowing that he may be looking just a little too good for the voters.
A couple of years ago I was waiting for an elevator in the state house. When the door opened, I stepped forward (Bostonian elevator etiquette being similar to our driving manners) and Mittser stepped out…we nearly hugged.
<
p>
I jumped back with fear as I realized that if he touched me I would be covered with foundation and blush. I usually tell that story on Halloween.
Nobody in media (or in general comments I’ve read) seems to be picking up on the fact of how the Willard Mitt (Fraud absentee ex-governor religious wacko) campaign tried to hide his little makeup expense as something else.
<
p>
http://www.politico….
<
p>
The expense was listed as “communications consulting”, and the lame excuse was that “because it was paid from the communications budget”.
<
p>
I imagine the FEC would (maybe?) notice a $100,000 expense for advertising titled the same way?
<
p>
Accounting and me do not mix well, but I certainly know the basics: you list an expense as to date, amount, to whom it was disbursed and its purpose.
<
p>
Another piece of great judgment.