Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Romney’s $300 Cosmetic Stylist

By

I wonder how this is going to play with the Edwards haircut crowd?

Politico has the story.

Well, “communications consulting” is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as “a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men’s grooming and spa services.”

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments — actually two separate $150 charges — were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session

If you’re wondering the name of the company Mitt Romney hired for his make up consultation? 

I kid you not, Hidden Beauty of West Hills, CA, nothing in the testimonials from Mitt but his cosmetic stylist did have some good words about him:

“He’s already tan,” she said. “We basically put a drop of foundation on him…and we powdered him a little bit.”

But the cherry on top, well I’ll let Mitt speak for himself. (from the Globe)

At a Portsmouth Rotary luncheon this afternoon, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was asked point blank “Where do you get your hair cut and how much does it cost?”

Romney said, as he has before, that he pays $50 for a hair cut including the tip.

Then he quipped: “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.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m sure that crazy liberal media will make as big a deal about Romney’s makeup bill as they have over Edwards’ expensive haircuts.

    <

    p>
    Yeah, right.

    • I doubt this will get the play that Edwards had for his haircut.  They are just being “Fair and Balanced”.

    • Glenn Greenwald has an excellent post on this at Salon. Agreeing with Satutai, he writes

      One of the reasons why vapid petty-personality “journalism” of this sort has so disadvantaged liberals and so advantaged right-wing fanatics is because the latter are not only willing, but droolingly eager, to exploit these sorts of themes, while liberals in general are highly reluctant, almost embarrassed, to do so.

      He goes on to quote some liberal embarrassment.

      • Liberals are just as eager to play gotcha as conservatives. Was it a coincidence that George W. Bush’s Maine drunk driving citation came out right before the 2000 election? One doesn’t have to look very far back in U.S. history to find plenty of examples of hardball politics by Democrats — or click very far on the internet to find venom-filled diatribes by both sides.

        • Not so quick. The Edwards haircut has been an endless source of amusement and repetition on the right. Greenwald points to the muted reaction on the left to Romney’s latest consultant. He provides some, you know, evidence, empirical goodness.

          <

          p>
          I know you find part of the left venom-filled and vituperative but the left, for example, lacks institutions like Drudge flogging Clinton stories in the 1990s or Limbaugh playing “Barack the Magic Negro” this year or Coulter veering into advocating physical violence. Cindy Sheehan, however shrill, is just not that venomous. Rachel Maddow mocks gently and subtly but nothing on the level of Drudge, Limbaugh, or Coulter. Who on the left even comes close to Savage? Matt Talibi? How prominent is Matt Talibi?

          <

          p>
          In 2004, there were stories coming out of Ohio about Democratic campaign signs being taken down.

          <

          p>
          That’s not to say that various old-style Democrats from the past (think big city machines) haven’t played hardball. In 2006? Who?

          Bush’s drunk driving issues really should have come out much earlier. Bush won the presidency on the basis of his “character”, not his policies, not his experience, not his insight. If the media is going to make this a contest on character, why was Gore savaged, based on things not true, and Bush let off the hook on stuff that was true? If liberals are such gotcha guys, where were the ads pounding away at the national guard issues, the alcoholism, the coke use, the business failures? Did we miss them?

          • A sociable beer (with a wobbly bottom) as we continue this discussion:

            <

            p>
            ———|  o   |  o  o |
            o  |
            ———|  U

            <

            p>
            Now, don’t you think that some might consider Michael Moore, for example, equivalent to say Bill O’Reilly in many ways. I personally thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty good, but I’d also admit it was full of cheap shots like, for example, presenting Bush making fun of himself at a Friar’s Club dinner as if it was a straight political address. Similarly, although I personally agree with most of what MoveOn does, I think vituperative is a pretty fair characterization of their tone. If you want current examples of hardball Democratic politics, try running as a Republican for a local office in New York City or Chicago or, indeed, anywhere that the Democratic Party is solidly entrenched.

            <

            p>
            My broader point is that I think we do ourselves a disservice by failing to recognize that our side, as it were, can be just as aggressive as their side. That’s good! Aggressive is good. Failing to see it, however, makes it harder to formulate a winning argument because the other side thinks you’re out of touch.

            <

            p>
            I think you are absolutely right about this point:

            <

            p>

            Bush let off the hook on stuff that was true? If liberals are such gotcha guys, where were the ads pounding away at the national guard issues, the alcoholism, the coke use, the business failures? Did we miss them?

            <

            p>
            Gore and Kerry should have recruited the more aggressive Democrats and pounded Bush on these points. In general, I’d say they lost in large part because they weren’t aggressive enough (compare for example the ineffective “unity” Boston Democratic Convention with the vicious “attack” New York Republican Convention.) But is wasn’t because the Democrats are nicer, it is because the individuals who ran the Gore and Kerry campaigns, starting with the candidates themselves were not very competent.

            <

            p>
            Which brings me to my final point: if anything, this discussion shows how important it is to know what Republicans think. Without a diversity of views, one really might convince oneself that the Democrats are always nice and the Republicans are the only ones who play gotcha. I don’t know if I have convinced you that that is inaccurate, or at least not the way many people see things, but speaking for myself that’s one reason I am very happy that we have a range of commenters here at BMG: it makes the discussion sharper, and a sharp knife cuts better.

            • First, thank you for your extended reply.

              <

              p>
              In vain have I tried to find a post on MyDD that segments the voting public into various groups. What I have read there is that Democrats include a significant bloc that hates partisanship, rancor, and disagreement. That bloc just wants everyone to be nice, nice, nice, and, if you can’t be nice, there’s something wrong with you. That rings true with me in my experience of the un-businesslike manner in which Democratic organizations are run. By that analysis, which I cannot find, the Republicans do not have such a bloc. That also fits, by the way, with Lakoff’s understanding of “liberal” and “conservative”. I wish I could find that reference. Until then, I cannot in good conscience ask you take it on faith. (I even looked at every post tagged “Demographics” there.)

              <

              p>
              As you might expect, I have more responses, e.g., over the Republican point of view and Moore vs BillO, why our side is not too aggressive.

  2. Bad makeup makes someone look awful on TV.  See Nixon, 1960 debate.  I can see the need for that.  Get the wrong person and you wind up looking like Tammy Faye Baker.

    <

    p>
    This is different from a haircut.  Edwards has essentially the same haircut as me, and probably 90-95% of adult men (or at least those of us with most of our hair).  The only difference is that mine cost $12 plus tip.

    <

    p>
    The knock against Edwards in this (at least for me) isn’t that he gets his hair cut in a salon.  It’s that he appears to be an extremely easy mark.

    <

    p>
    The brilliant “I Feel Pretty” YouTube sure didn’t help him.

    • Yes, it is different for you because one is in the Democratic Party while the other is in the Republican Party.  Plus the bonus of Mitt calling out Edwards in the first place.

      • I see spending money on a makeup person (assuming it is before a studio TV appearance) to be a reasonable expense.

        <

        p>
        On the contrary, I see the expenditure of $400 on the haircut that John Edwards has to be evidence of a fool being parted with his money.

        • Take your defense for Mitt and apply them to Edwards it’s the same thing, that’s the point.  I agree with you’re argument about a candidate’s presentation.

            • And further from one every day.

              <

              p>
              Not really a fan of Romney either.  I just get fed up with the Ahab-like pursuit of Romney herein.

              <

              p>
              Romney has so publicly flipped on the various “culture war” issues, in order to woo the right wing, I can easily imagine him flopping back if elected if it becomes expedient to do so.  Heck, I won’t be surpised if he finds that the scales drop from his eyes and converts to being a Baptist.

              <

              p>
              That is why I view Giuliani as the far greater threat to the republic.  Giuliani hasn’t really attempted to flip or flop on “social” issues, although he isn’t really campaigning on those issues.  Instead he is attempting to woo the right by promising ruthlessness on terrorism as he was once ruthless on crime.

              <

              p>
              I lived in NYC at the time he assumed office.  He was a very good mayor, with a skill set that was narrowly tailored to being mayor of NYC at that time.  He was ruthless on crime in a city that then seemed to be headed in same direction as Philly or Detroit.  He was an autocratic bully in a city plagued by intransigent unions and beauracracy.  While these qualities made him generally successful as mayor, at least for a time, they also precipitated most of the very bizzare blunders (the ferret guy, the pedestrian blockades, firing Bratton, the feud with the Brooklyn museum).

              <

              p>
              This skill set also makes Rudy unusually unqualified to be President of the United States.  For him, ruthlessness on terror means that he will execute the policies of Bush and Cheney– abandoning habeus, the use of torture, the “unitary” executive, the belief that the Presidents status as CinC renders the President exempt from all law, etc., except that he will do it competently.  Does anyone relish the thought of a competent Bush administration?

              <

              p>

            • If you argue that appearance matters (and it does) then why is one okay and the other is not?  There are blinders on here.  Plus add that Mitt also made cheap political points in NH about Edwards haircut and you get another layer of hypocrisy.  But no instead we get, hair cut, no I get hair cuts, makeup well you need to pay for makeup argument absolutely makes no sense.

              • All I’m saying is that $300 is a reasonable expenditure for what you get from a makeup person, and that $400 is not a reasonable expenditure for the haircut that Edwards gets.  In other words, the contrast suggests to me that Edwards is likely to proudly display the deed reflecting his purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge.

                <

                p>
                If Romney spent thousands on good makeup artists, when a decent one could be had for a few bucks, then it would be different.

                <

                p>
                If, say, Romney spent $20 million on an investigation that could have been done by just pretending to have an investigation, then he would be ripe for criticism.  But not for the makeup, even if he jokes about Edwards $400 hairdo.

                • Mitt knows that the Edwards haircut thing is crap, and that everyone does what they have to do to look right for the cameras etc.  It part of the campaign.  But he still seizes on the opportunity to make a cheap remark on something that has no bearing on running for president.  Now I think he needs to be called on it, you can’t play that this is non-sense let’s focus on real issues when Mitt himself used this to attack Edwards.  What comes around….this is one of Mitt’s double gitmo, say whatever moments then he can talk about his $300 makeup.

                • My understanding of the big tab for Edwards was that it was for the hairdresser to come to him, rather than him going to the shop. The idea that Edwards is such an idiot that he doesn’t know he can get is hair cut for less than $400 is not credible–on the other hand, I’m surprised he doesn’t realize that guys like him look good with shaggy hair.

                  <

                  p>
                  By the way, Charlie Crist gets his hair cut for $9…so Romney’s still paying way too much.

                • If you want to claim that you can get a good haircut for a $20 but good television makeup sets one back at least $300, that’s a reasonable argument.

                  <

                  p>
                  I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s reasonable enough.

            • Bush/Cheney. I’ve seen similar quotes to this one many times: 

              On second thought (0.00 / 0)
              In any move toward impeachment, the most outspoken in favor will be the “He lied to start a war” crowd, whom have always been clearly wrong, and will spiral the whole thing off into a GOP recovery in 2008.
              by: CentralMassDad @ Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:04:07 AM EDT
              [ Parent | Reply | ]

              <

              p>
              Never mind that Bush & Cheney have lied continually about connections between Sadam & Al Qaeda, WMD, etc. You can call it whatever you like, but nobody that I’ve ever met besides lame GOP apologists would run their mouths about the “Bush lied to start a war” crowd.

              <

              p>
              Let me guess, he’s a “moderate Democrat”, working to save the party from those nasty “Liberals”. Spare me.

              • And I’m no moderate Democrat.

                <

                p>
                Polling shows that self-identified liberals are not a majority within the Democratic Party. If we liberals want to make progress, as in get the Blue Dogs in the House to vote correctly, end the war, institute universal health care, then we have to practice talking with moderate Democrats and taking them very, very seriously. They’re part of our coalition. We can’t ignore that unless we want to choose the purity of impotence.

                <

                p>
                That’s different from the need to jettison Beltway Conventional Wisdom and the pundit/DC consultant misperception of the world that just loses ground for Democrats.

                In the thread you quote, CMD replied to himself. He was replying to the following which does not read like a Republican defense of Bush or Cheney.

                They must lay the groundwork
                Luckily for the Congress that just requires that they do their job as a legislature, ond oversee the executive.

                I agree that there is grounds for the use of the impeachment power, on the Padilla issue alone, and perhaps for the bypassing of the courts in the wiretapping cases.  This is the first time I have acknowledged that.  But they have a lot of work to do to lay it out for that part of the country that are not progressive true believers.  The time remaining before November 2008 is probably insufficient.

                So oversee.

                • It is in fact an apology for Bush/Cheney lying us into Iraq.

                  <

                  p>
                  Here’s another nice quote from the very serious CMD lecturing FankSkeffington about ‘your party’and it’s credibility problem:

                  <

                  p>

                  The problem with you’re respionse  (5.50 / 2)
                  You spend much of your reply explaining why Bush’s policy was wrong, and not much explaining the answer to the question: “Now what?”

                  If only Bush hadn’t been rude and had engaged the UN etc., etc., etc.

                  Well, now it is 2006, and your party is trying to explain why it should control the Congress, and will shortly commence explaining why it should control the white house today, and has a credibility problem on the simgle most important issue facing the electorate.
                  We know Iran sponsors terrorists,…………
                  by: CentralMassDad @ Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 16:41:50 PM EDT

                  <

                  p>
                  Huh. A credibility problem? Gee, we’ll probably lose the Congress if we keep mentioning the fact that Bush lied us into a war that’s getting thousands of people killed, and undermining our military while costing us $12 Billion a month. Fuck me.

                • I read what you quoted and if you look on my page you’ll see I have a series of Iraq diaries inspired in part by responding to CMD. So I’m aware of his point of view. He is not Broder, Friedman, Joe Klein, or any of the other Very Serious people whom Atrios insightfully counterposes against the “dirty hippies”.

                  <

                  p>
                  Listen to me though. Why can’t we get Congressional Democrats to show spine and get us out of this ridiculously tragically awful Iraq occupation? That’s a pressing problem — as I think you would agree. What does it take?

                  <

                  p>
                  A big part of the problem is institutional. If we had the resources of the American Enterprise Institute, we would actually have much better answers to questions like, “Won’t there be a genocide if we pull out?” We’d have experts and studies and position papers. The Republicans can have their stupid Kagans and Kristols; we’d have our [fill in blank] and [fill in another blank].

                  <

                  p>
                  By my lights, our presence in Iraq is counter-productive. We should completely withdraw, not sort of withdraw to little enclaves, but completely out. The argument for my position just does not feel as totally convincing as I would like. It’s hard to convince someone with huge reservations. Those doubters are not convinced by appeals to Bush’s mendacity — which I do not hear CMD as denying. It’s just that appeals to past mendacity don’t imply anything about the correctness of future policy. Will appeals to Bush’s mendacity get Senators Pryor, Landrieu, and Nelson to vote more consistently?

                  <

                  p>
                  No, they will not.

                  <

                  p>
                  What will? For that, CMD is asking very useful questions.

                • talking points, two of which I pointed out to you upthread. Maybe the reason that some of the Dems haven’t found their “spine” on Iraq is because they listen to consultants like CMD. 

                  <

                  p>
                  BTW, how did those 2006 midterms work out?

                  <

                  p>
                  OT, single file please.

                • CMD is not a consultant.

                  <

                  p>
                  I’m saying we have to engage the moderates and to those on purity patrol they will sound Republican now and again. Engaging the moderates means answering certain legitimate questions.

                  <

                  p>
                  “Engaging the moderates” does not mean running values-free, wonkish, mealy mouthed campaigns that are afraid of what we stand for and communicate that. Please see my comment on 21st Century Democrats. I’m all on board the critique of consultants. I’m happy to accuse people of falling into Republican talking points.

                  <

                  p>
                  But Mr. Mojoman, liberals are a minority of Democrats. How do you make more liberals? Do you make more liberals by accusing moderates of being perfidious repeaters of Republican talking points? That’s not going to work.

                  <

                  p>
                  Finally, we’re not running a national campaign on BMG. We’re having a discussion.

                  <

                  p>
                  Could you, like, reply to this argument — as opposed to performing still more exegesis on CMD’s posts?

                • I found those posts to be extremely useful, and you convinced me more than you know.

                  <

                  p>
                  This is the kind of thinking that I have been wanting from the Democrats.  They need more of this, and to incorporate it into their policy and planning, lest we withdraw from Iraq in the same willynilly manner in which we invaded.

                  <

                  p>
                  I would like to see withdrawal acheive certain objectives: (i) protect, and certainly do not abandon, the Kurds, the only friends we have left; (ii) protect Kuwait from whatever power emerges in our wake; (ii) prevent, to the extent possible, the rise of Iran as a dominant regional power.  I still get very nervous when I hear calls for “immediate” withdrawal or withdrawal via de-funding, because implicit in these policies is extreme inattention to our remaining strategic interests.  I suppose that in any event withdrawal will mean a great deal more dead Iraqis.

                  <

                  p>
                  I was particularly heartened to learn that intra-Shiite feuds are almost as intense as the Shia-Sunni feud, which means that Iran, if/when it decides to intervene, could find itself bogged down in a civil war.

              • Evidently one has the option of being either (i) a “progressive”, or (ii) a Bush/Cheny talking point repeater.

                <

                p>
                Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a primary national security concern of this country since the moment that the first President Bush wisely called a halt in the first Gulf War.  They were a high on the agenda for the entirety of the Clinton administration, eclipsed only from time to time by passing issues such as Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, and the early muscle flexing of al-Quaida.  The Clinton administration thought that Iraq had them, and Clinton himself said this on numerous occasions throught his presidency, even very late into his Presidency.  The weapons inspection/sanction regime was in a shambles by 2000, in part because it cost Europe money.  Saddam managed to duck, cover, and even oust the inspectors.  It is sadly ironic that the inspections only gained traction once Bush positioned American forces on the border, ready to invade.  It is a worthwhile indictment of Bush that he failed to use the leverage when he had the advantage.  Indeed, this is why I do not hold their “vote for the war” against Kerry, HRC, etc.:  because it was, at the time, a vote for leverage, which the administration turned out not to be capable of exploiting.

                <

                p>
                So, unless you are prepared to tell me that Clinton and the Democrats were in on the conspiracy, I will continue to mainatin that “Bush lied about WMD” or “Bush lied to start a war” is, um, false.  Saying more loudly or more shrilly won’t make it true.  Moreober, just because the intelligence was wrong doesn’t make it a lie.

                <

                p>
                You will note that I limit my criticism of the “Bush lied” arguments to the WMD issue; the administration’s arguments that Saddam was connected somehow to al-Quaida or to 9/11 were indeed deliberate falsehoods.

                <

                p>
                As for impeachment, had you actually read what I posted, you would understand that I am in favor– not opposed– to impeaching the President.  But I am skeptical that it can be done without snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  If the House goes off half-cocked, before building a case before the country, the only people behind the enterprise will be the True Believer Ideologues: those who consider someone a Bush/Cheney supporter if we don’t think that Farenheit 9/11 was a documentary.  In other words, it would be a fiasco, and the only ones that would be helped would be the GOP candidates in 2008.

                <

                p>
                It took almost two years to build the case against Nixon.  It took as long to build the case against Clinton, even though there was no case.  There are now just fifteen months before the next presidential election.  There isn’t time for impeachment.  There is time, however, for Congress to act as designed and conduct oversight of the executive.  Executive non-cooperation in this endeavor actually helps the Democrats!  What could be better?  Instead, we have pressure from the left wing for Congress to take actions that unite and reenergize the GOP:  cutting off funds and impeachment.  So yes, to that extent, I think the Democrats need to be saved from the progressives before the progressives lose an unloseable election, and condemn us to President Giuliani.

                <

                p>
                As for my own political identification, to the extent it is relevant, I am neither Republican nor a Democrat.  I have tended to vote Democratic in national elections, and more likely to split tickets in statewide elctions (the most recent being the first time I have not done so).  I suppose I am among those that were once called “Reagan Democrats,” reclaimed by Clinton, and now in the independent middle as the parties play mainy to their wings.  In 2008 my candidate is most likely HRC, though I am unlikely to vote Republican in any event for reasons explained elsewhere in this thread.

                • What you are saying about the belief that WMDs were in Iraq before Bush II is true.  It’s been a long held belief, before Clinton, before Bush I.  But you missed the part about the evidence that the Bush administration manufactured concerning WMDs.  You made a blanket statement that everyone though there were WMDs there so it’s not Bush’s fault. 

                  <

                  p>
                  That’s incorrect.  You pointed out the the al-Qaeda link was manufactured, but completely missed the uranium from Niger, Powell’s speech to the UN.  There have been manufactured evidence about WMDs by the Bush administration.  It is for that very reason that the argument for WMDs falls on deaf ears and the statement that “Bush lied about WMDs” is in fact true.

                • Even though it really no longer relevant.

                  <

                  p>
                  The Niger/uranium claims were false.  I don’t think they were lies, in the sense that I don’t think they were known to be false when argued, particularly by Powell.  Were they too ready to believe what they wanted and insufficiently skeptical of the intelligence?  Yes.  I don’t think that is a lie.

                  <

                  p>
                  In sum, I don’t think that “lied us into war” is an especially useful criticism of Bush.  It is more useful than Halliburton conspiracy theories, but not much more so.

                  <

                  p>
                  This irks me because there are just so many things that Bush has actually done wrong.  He naively and arrogantly involved our armed forces in a war of choice for which they were unprepared and with no idea about how things might go beyond the first two weeks.  He has dramatically reduced our ability to project military power worldwide.  He has isolated us diplomatically.  He has surrendered the moral high ground, hard won during military conflicts over 200 plus years.  He has done nothing to improve, and has unintentionally worsened our ability to collect useful intelligence in the Middle East. He has shown no respect to our traditions our institutions of government.  He has empowered and strenghthened our most significant enemies: jihadists and Iran.  He has asserted a theory of executive authority –with the acquiesence of Congress (still)– that is incompatible with republican (small r) government.

                  <

                  p>
                  So why the heck do the progressives stick to the one damn thing that is actually defensible?  Do they like getting their clock cleaned or something?

                  <

                  p>
                  So what would the Democrats like to do?  They would like to clean up the mess, which is, I suppose, a plus.  It is not unreasonable then to ask, “how?” and “What then?”  Calling these questions “talking points” is tantamount to an admission that “we have no earthly idea, and don’t care, because we believe we’re right.”  This attitude is precisely parallell to the one got us here in the first place.

                  <

                  p>
                  Democrats control the Congress, for goodness’ sakes, and they are wasting the little time they have with stupid stunts like resolutions and last night’s silly debate.  What was that supposed to accomplish?  We’re not a parliamentary system, and votes of no confidence are meaningless here.  Be a legislative branch! Hold some damn hearings!  Get the answers to “how” and “what next” out on the news so people can actually have the sense that Democrats are out for something greater than scoring a layup with the base.

                • tells you it’s not credible information, then you say it in the State of the Union, you aren’t purposely misleading the public?

                • “slam dunk,” I do.  Tenet’s subsequent attempt to weasel out of that statement notwithstanding.

                  <

                  p>
                  I don’t think we’re going to agree.  But it really shouldn’t matter.  It seems to me that, in any event, even if you are 100% right, in most of the country, this particular line of argument wins very few points.  It smacks of “Irrational Bush Hatred” much as mutterings about the “murder” of Vince Foster did in the other direction.

                  <

                  p>
                  I think the public’s anger on Iraq is hiding two similar but different angles, which I’m not sure polling can even effectively distinguish.  In most of the country, people are pissed at Bush/the GOP about Iraq not because they invaded, but because they fucked it up.  It is the fuckups that carry the most resonance nationally.  Better still, a focus on Bush’s fuckups tends to counter the effect, already in progress, of blaming the left and the media for “sapping” morale and losing the war. 

                  <

                  p>
                  I therefore think that Democrat’s perpetual focus on whether it was a good idea to invade are counter-productive exercises in heretic purging.

                • But there is credible evidence that they were trying to provide a smoking gun in order to go to Iraq.  When they couldn’t find one they created it, the details of Cheney’s WHIG which we found out about because of the Plame scandal and the Office of Net Assessment.  Facts are facts.  This isn’t made up stuff from the internets, it’s grand jury testimony.

                • But as I read it all, it seems like they approached the whole thing in a closed minded way, meaning that they discounted evidence that cut the wrong way, and over-emphasized evidence that didn’t.  The leap that I am not prepared to make is “create.”  In other words, what I have seen is a gross failure in judgment, not an exercise in calculated malfeasance. (This is a defense of Bush/Cheney?!)

                  <

                  p>
                  It also seems to me that “gross failure in judgment” is more consistent with what we know about the Bush administration, than “calculated malfeasance” (which suggests that they knew what they were doing).

                  <

                  p>
                  In any event, this debate is so 2003.  Even the troop withdrawl agrument is so March, as the Army will be incapable of continuing beyond sometime next spring.  So, is anyone besides the military thinking about what comes next?  We know the executive branch is not.  Can anyone think of any other part of government not controlled by Bush et al.?

                • Despite that fact, Bush and Cheney conflated Al Qaeda with Saddam in order to convince Americans that by invading Iraq we were striking Al Qaeda and the perpetrators of 9/11. That is the big lie, and The White House is still pushing it. It’s not all that complicated.

                  <

                  p>
                  This is not a “gross failure of judgement”, it is lying. Ignore it if you like, but the record is there.

                  <

                  p>
                  Sorry if you find the reasons why we invaded Iraq “so 2003”, or “so March”, but some of us think that it does have a bearing on the future.

                • I have not denied that a suggestion that Saddam was involved in 9/11 is a lie.  It was, and is.  Yes, the administration continues to lie about this.

                  <

                  p>
                  I have not denied this here or elsewhere.  I have denied that the administration “lied us into war” or “lied about WMD.”  The 9/11 thing became the cassus belli only after the WMD intelligence proved wrong; in other words, after the invasion.

                  <

                  p>
                  So, let us agree that Bush lied to continue a war already begun.

                  <

                  p>
                  You might regard these as picayune distinctions; I don’t.  Maybe it is a professional tic.  The primary reason that I do not regard the distinction as insignificant is because when we accuse the POTUS of such misdeeds, we have to get it 100% correct.  Otherwise, the accusations are easily dismissed as the hysterical ravings of those with Irrational Bush Hatred, and tend to taint even the substantiated allegations.

          • The distinction is that Edward’s haircut is the most simple possible, with the possible exceptions of the “bowl”, the “Flow-be”, and the boot camp buzz.  In most barbershops, it is probably called “regular.”

            <

            p>
            There is a reason that my wife won’t get her hair cut at the same place that I do: she has a lot more hair, which requires more time and skill to cut well. Also, my wife’s haircut lasts for months because it is more than two inches long.  If I had my wife’s hairdresser cut my hair, it would look exactly the same as it does now, and would still need to be cut in a month.  It would therefore be foolishly naive for me to go to my wife’s hairdresser for a haircut.  It would be as if I went shopping for a car, and paid $80K for a Prius, because the salesman convinced me that they’re in demand.

            <

            p>
            So I am specifically refusing to acknowledge that the haircut raises the same concerns as the makeup.

        • You say you get your haircut for $12, way less than Edwards.  Fine.  Millions of women do their makeup for free.  Why is it costing Mitt so much?

          • Although both are called “makeup” there is a qualitative difference between dressing up and being made up for an appearance in a TV studio under klieg lights.  If the latter is done poorly, especially on a man, he can be inadvertently made to look like he is wearing makeup, or to look like he is a vampire.  So, if the makeup artist was for TV appearances, I think this attempted gotcha is a swing and a miss.  If Romney wears “every day” makeup, I’d agree that you have a good gotcha.

            <

            p>
            That is why I draw a distinction between the makeup and the basic “part on the left, or part ion the right?” men’s haircut, which takes approximately 10 minutes to do well at almost any barbershop.

    • just curious how you felt about reagan dying his hair.  i know, this is only marginally related to the thread.  and for all i know he did it with a do-it-yourself $5.99 home kit.  but i’m curious whether people think it is a matter of style or deception for politicians to dye their hair with more youthful colors than they themselves are sprouting.  i see it as deception, and tucked and dyed pols lose points with me for being tucked and dyed.

      <

      p>
      btw, i agree w/you CMD that if a pol is going on t.v., they would be stupid not to attend to decent make up.  i recall getting mighty annoyed at senator kerry a few years back.  he was very late for a town hall meeting, partly because he was getting made up in anticipation of the news cams that were present.  i’m sure he did look great on t.v., but in person he looked, well, funky.  so i was annoyed not only by the considerable delay in schedule, but by the fact that he was supposed to be speaking with the people who made the effort to show up at the meeting, but i felt he was really using us as a prop for a larger tv audience.

      • If we’re thinking of the same incident, Kerry looked orange, like an oompa loompa.  He could have used better makeup, yes.

      • The hair dye sure could have been an issue for Reagan.  Gerhard Shroder went nuts about similar allegations, and looked foolish.  (See, more than one of us can make Germany references.)

        <

        p>
        But Reagan–like him or not– was far too polished a politician to allow that to happen.  If it was to become an issue, it would have suggested that Reagan was too old, and aware of it.  Reagan effectively zapped that issue by “not making an issue of [Mondale’s] youth and inexperience.”  Again, like him or not, marvel at the skill with which he dumped that whole issue all over Mondale’s head.

        <

        p>
        The Edwards situation is different, though.  I almost hesitate to raise this, so please do not take offense, as none is intended.  There seeme to be, at least to me, a not-so subtle suggestion that Edwards is something other than, um, traditionally “masculine”–  that is (gulp) gay– because he had his hair “done” at a salon rather than “cut” by a barber.  I suspect that this is the more relevant datum for many, and that $400 in this context just code for a “women’s hair salon.” So it isn’t just insinuating that Edwards is preening and vain.

  3. Was it urban myth or blistering reality that, as governor, Willard had a personal salon installed in the basement of the State House?

      • I know there are a lot of more important things going on these days.  But Mitt staffed his own hair salon in the state house? 

        <

        p>
        Does anyone have any articles on this?  Nothing so far on Google that I can find.

    • I new I’d seen it somewhere besides AmberPaw’s post.  There was a Boston Herald article in 2005 about it.  It was reproduced, at least in part, on this blog.  You can read the free abstract on the Herald site here, or pay to see the full article.  The abstract reads

      Massachusetts taxpayers are shelling out at least $350,000 a year for a cadre of aides whose chief duty is to make Gov. – and possible presidential candidate – Mitt Romney look spiffy during public appearances.

      Six of the staff members have been hired in the past 14 months, with one being paid by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and two by the Bureau of State Office Buildings, said Romney spokeswoman Julie Teer. Four of the staffers are unpaid interns.

      Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said Romney doesn’t need pricey help with his image. “How does this benefit the commonwealth?” she asked. “All (Romney) has to do is walk into a room and he looks good, so why would you need a whole support staff to look good?”

      Wow!  When Barbara Anderson find fault, you know you’ve pissed off the basest foundation of The Base!
      The blog quote reads

      Boston Herald – Massachusetts taxpayers are shelling out at least $350,000 a year for a cadre of aides whose chief duty is to make Gov. – and possible presidential candidate – Mitt Romney look spiffy during public appearances.

      The 13-person staff of the newly expanded Governor’s Office of Operations has taken over a warren of rooms in the State House basement previously occupied by the Legislature.

      Led by “director of operations” Jay Garrity, 27, the squad is responsible for ensuring Romney has the proper lighting at events, his microphone works and there are enough chairs for attendees.

      Romney aides steadfastly insist the operation is not political – despite its resemblance to a campaign advance team.

      Six of the staff members have been hired in the past 14 months, with one being paid by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and two by the Bureau of State Office Buildings, said Romney spokeswoman Julie Teer. Four of the staffers are unpaid interns.

      The hiring spree coincides with Romney’s growing travel schedule, including trips to key presidential election sites such as Iowa.

      Willard’s chief valet director of beauty operations and “constant companion at his side” was listed as Jay Garrity.  That name rang a bell.  Google reminded me that he’s the guy who recently impersonated a state trooper.  Garrity, who has an annual salary of $56,000, remains on paid leave.

      • Nice work Laurel.  Found the front page, but not the article:

        <

        p>
        Townhall of all places has a commenter with a reprint of the “Taxpayers foor the bill for Mitt’s sharper image” article.  Plus they also another one on Garrity, in March 2004 “Top Romney aide bagged with car copping attitude”.

        <

        p>
        So at this point we know that Mitt who’s taken cracks at Edwards for his haircut, had his own $300 makeup artist, a hair salon and possibly a manicurist station built within the statehouse basement as part of his “Image Team”, where staff were paid the tune of $350,000 of taxpayer dollars.

  4. I am wondering if the Romney campaign will now accept directed campaign political contributions to his LA cosmetic stylist to defray the heavy cost of primping Gov Romney for his prime time TV appearances.

    <

    p>
    Why should Romney’s $300 cosmetic stylist have to go hungry in the coming months because the Romney campaign overspent on costly TV advertising in the Boston/NH markets last quarter and finds itself strapped for cash? 

    <

    p>
    For Romney’s next national televised appearance, I am wondering if his cosmetic stylist could apply a facial cream or a chemical skin treatment that would take off his well-rehearsed “shit-eating” grin, which naturally accompanies the inane, vacuous, and worthless political rhetoric that emanates from Romney’s mouth. Perhaps, however, this last task falls to Mitt’s dentist who must be making a mint maintaining the sparkling gleam and perfect straightness of his prized patient’s teeth.

  5. From his blog

    <

    p>

    Ultimately it’s really not a big deal…and it shouldn’t and probably won’t impact Romney’s campaign.  That said, it sure is a good thing Romney never took a swipe at John Edwards for his haircut faux pas.  Oh, he did?  Oops.

Archives