Romney’s hair-brained hypocrisy.
Romney’s hair-brained hypocrisy.
When media reports revealed that former senator John Edwards had paid $400 for his haircuts, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney stated that “he pays $50 for a hair cut including the tip”:
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.
Today, Politico reports:
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 with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
lol
July 17th, 2007 at 10:09 amOh, well, that's different. Makeup is much more manly than a haircut. Maybe the makeup session is why Mitt smells so good. Mmmmmmmmm, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:10 amI was under the impression that 'Mittuns' got his make-up and other
womanly supplies from Rudy. Or was it Vitter? Damn memory...
July 17th, 2007 at 10:11 amBut he is Republican so hypocrisy is allowed and encouraged.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:11 amSo? John Edwards paid $400,000 to get his nose hair trimmed.
That's what I heard, anyway.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:14 amRomney should quit trying. First he flip flops on all his stances on social issues he used to get elected governor of Mass, now he's falling into the trap of attacking the straw men set up for him by talk radio.
If Edwards wants to spend his own money paying obscene amounts for haircuts, that's his business. If Romney wants to spend three-digit figures on grooming and spa services, that's his business (but it would be refreshing if he didn't lie about it).
More importantly -- how will either of these men run the country if they're elected?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:14 amhypocrisy? for a politician? what a surprise. Hypocrisy, distorting, propaganda and outright lying has gone hand in hand with politics for ages......sadly it's no different in the "land of the free."
Some reading on this:
"Politicians Lie? Say it Ain't So!"
July 17th, 2007 at 10:15 amhttp://www.populistamerica.com/politicians_lie___say_it_ain_t_so
Hypocrisy is not a consideration for anyone clueless enough to vote for this guy.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:16 amThe make-up was used to conceal the square corners of his head. What's the problem?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama discuss whether they should exclude the lesser presidential candidates from future debates.
Think Boring, Think Inconsequential, Think Dull.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amOh, Hypocrisy, thy party of registration is Republican.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:21 amglass houses and stones -
IOKIYAR
July 17th, 2007 at 10:23 amI pay zero for my haircuts (I cut my own hair at home with clippers).
Does this make me more of an American than Romney?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:24 amMore importantly, where was his dog when he was getting groomed? Hmm?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:24 amThe same way people have begun to tune out when they hear "50 dead in Iraq" because it is no longer news, so goes Republican Hypocrisy.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amWe require our political leaders to be movie stars and then punish them when they are. Americans need to look more at themselves than the visa bills of Edwards and Romney.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amI thought that Romney's glossy, shiny and oiled hair would cost more than $50.00 as he claimed..
July 17th, 2007 at 10:27 amMittend could use some makeup.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:29 amWithout it you could probably see his horns, cloven feet and tail.
#13 ~ same here (plus occasional investments in baseball caps)
July 17th, 2007 at 10:31 amFrom all outward appearances, Romney's campaign has already self-destructed. Mitt, who?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:31 amHis hypocrisy has been highlighted on several issues already. The american people will have no more overt hypocrisy after having a belly full of it for 6 years.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amHey RU: I looked for you on C & L but couldn't find you there.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amAnyone heard his cute little story about his Dad, and how he struggled to make the American Motor Company a success?
The part he leaves out is this is how Mittuns can spend the way he does. Just like Bush, Daddy had the money. Bush & Mittuns have no business acumen or talent, just members of the lucky sperm club...
force fed with a silver spoon, of course.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am20 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS DO NOT SUPPORT RESOLUTION TO REINSTATE HABEAS CORPUS!
(if someone had told me 5 years ago I'd be writing such a headline I'd of thought only if I was living in a parallel bizarro universe)
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Max Baucus (D-MT) Evan Bayh (D-IN) Robert Casey (D-PA) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Tim Johnson (D-SD) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) Ben Nelson (D-NE) Mark Pryor (D-AR) Jack Reed (D-RI) Charles Schumer (D-NY) Jon Tester (D-MT) James Webb (D-VA) Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The vote may take place in days. Call and tell them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (S-185).
July 17th, 2007 at 10:33 amAs Mitt says' "There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there "...are the suckers who elect hypocrits like me.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am#24 Please exclude Tim Johnon D-SD from my list. He's still recovering from a stroke.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:36 amWhat I find so funny is all the right-wingers (and "tweety") kept falling over themselves talking about how man-pretty Romney is. They were in love with the guy. Now they all find out he has his own make-up team. Any bets they stop talking about how hunky he is?
PErsonally, I think all these stories are a non-issue. The right-wing loves talking about looks for their candidate, one could argue they even vote based purely on these looks, but they attack any Dem who pays money to look good. Of course these rich candidates pay top dollar on their appearance, if they didn't then the media would obsess how ugly and un-American they are or call them "french". And any time one of these candidates goes on TV, guess what...they have makeup put on.
So while the media and the right is completely hypocritical if they ignore this issue (which they will), perhaps we are also a little hypocritical for trying to push this story.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:38 amThere are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $300 for one visit to a makeup artist, and then there is everybody else.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am"I thought that Romney’s glossy, shiny and oiled hair would cost more than $50.00 as he claimed.."
That's just for the cut. It doesn't include his product expenses which are probably astronomical. Clearly, he is a member of the hair club for men.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am20 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS DO NOT SUPPORT RESOLUTION TO REINSTATE HABEAS CORPUS!
Comment by Larry from C — July 17, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Great post larry. Keep them honest. The Dems are no better than the Repubs. They are all crooks and liars playing on the ignorance and emotion of the people.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am#31 Ann,
He can sell '.Just For Men' products, if he didn't make in his presidential race.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:52 amMeanwhile, Hillary and Obama discuss whether they should exclude the lesser presidential candidates from future debates.
Think Boring, Think Inconsequential, Think Dull.
Comment by Always Right — July 17, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Another great post. But I guess TP thinks thwarting Democracy is progress.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am20 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS DO NOT SUPPORT RESOLUTION TO REINSTATE HABEAS CORPUS!
Comment by Larry from C — July 17, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Larry C, please clarify. As I understood it, the list of 20 Democratic Senators you posted was simply those who had not yet agred to co-sponsor the bill. That's not the same thing as not supporting it.
Are you saying that they will vote 'no"?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:52 amRomney 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.â€
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 with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif.
Makeup?
Why does this hit me as kinda gay for an anti-gay Rebumblican?
Makeup?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:54 amI knew some troll would step up to the plate and make the "$400 for a haircut versus $300 for two appointments means no hypocrisy" argument.
Way to go, yep.
Oh, did we mention that those appointments were for very manly makeup? Oh, right, we did. You're right. Mitt is still a stud.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
July 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am20 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS DO NOT SUPPORT RESOLUTION TO REINSTATE HABEAS CORPUS! --- Larry from C
Tim Johnson has been recovering from a brain hemorage and surgery for the last 6 months
July 17th, 2007 at 10:58 amIt's kind of unfair to have him on that list.
Actually it's kind of shitty, in my book.
#24 Please exclude Tim Johnon D-SD from my list. He’s still recovering from a stroke.
Comment by Larry from C
Ahh missed this before I posted my reply
July 17th, 2007 at 11:01 amWe need to ask these Democrats why they have not yet stepped up to the plate and signed on to the Resolution? It may come up for a vote this week. Why are they waiting? They should be out in front of this legislation. They should be vocal. Without Habeas Corpus WE HAVE NOTHING. The corporate media (yet again) refuses to cover this story. These Democrats need to be shouting so the corporate media cannot NOT cover this story. I'd be willing to bet that 95% of the country doesn't know about any of this. How pathetically sad.
Here's the toll-free number to dial at the U.S. Capitol: 800-862-5530. Just call and ask to be connected to your Senator's office.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:02 amGreat post larry. Keep them honest. The Dems are no better than the Repubs. They are all crooks and liars playing on the ignorance and emotion of the people.
Comment by Troll
Funny, I never see you post Republican hypocricy especially when they are the ones that trashed the constitution over the last 6 years.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am$ 300 is a lot to pay for axle grease. Mitt would pass for my auto mechanic if he wasn't wearing make up.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amThe hypocrisy is endless.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:06 am#37 Wayne, please join me in asking people to make just one or two calls a day. Time is better spent Contacting our Representatives than arguing with trolls. If we all made just 2 calls a day (3 minutes of your time?) it'd make a HUGE difference.
#31 Troll, the Republicans are 99% corrupt. The Dems are 50% to 80% corrupt IMO.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:07 am"So while the media and the right is completely hypocritical if they ignore this issue (which they will), perhaps we are also a little hypocritical for trying to push this story.
Comment by Rosencrantz"
The story isn't about the makeup expenditures, it's about the hypocracy. And we should be pointing this out, ignoring hypocracy is what led to bush, well one of the things.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:09 amWe need to ask these Democrats why they have not yet stepped up to the plate and signed on to the Resolution?
Comment by Larry from C — July 17, 2007 @ 11:02 am
You didn't really answer my question.
Is this a list of Democrats who haven't signed oin to co-sponsor the bill? Or Democrats who wll vote "no" on the bill?
It's a pretty crucial distinction, I think you'll agree.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:09 amWhy don't we just go all the way and proclaim the presidential election a beauty pageant? Each candidate would declare all the beauty products they use and the enhancements they have done -- and the price tag for each. Then the American populace can judge to see who got the most bang for their buck.
I can just see Edwards running on his haircuts, Romney running on his makeup, Fred Thompson running on his cologne.....
Hey, it's not like a lot of Americans pay attention to the actual issues anyway.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:14 amit's okay to lie if you're a Mormon. Joseph Smith has asked Jesus to look the other way.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:16 amSo, it's "Hidden Beauty" of West Hills, Calif. How republican!
July 17th, 2007 at 11:21 amI heard that John Edward's now uses the Flowbee Hair Cutting System, doesn't get much cheaper than that.
Even poor candidates that have spent all their money (like McCain) can afford a vacuum cleaner.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:32 amRomney should stop wasting his time and money -- he's a bubble head in an empty suit.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:35 amOnly a wuss wears make-up. My vote is for Fred Thompson. Anyone who looks like the walking dead is my kind of daddy candidate.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am#50 Kelso,
[ I heard that John Edwards now uses Flowbee Hair Cutting System,doesn't get much cheaper than that...]
July 17th, 2007 at 11:44 am--------------------------------------------
I heard also that he is now using a 'weedeater instead'...!!
Funny, I never see you post Republican hypocricy especially when they are the ones that trashed the constitution over the last 6 years.
Comment by Wayne — July 17, 2007 @ 11:05 am
No I go to the conservative blogs to do that.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pmWhy sing to the choir?
yep said:
"So that is $150 per appointment that includes 3 services. When breaking it down like that his quote about $50 for a haircut is about right."
Comment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Except that:
"Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed ... the payments ... though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session."
That is $300 for one session.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pmThat not a bad price considering Romney's hare brain needs to be trimmed too.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm"I knew some troll would step up to the plate and make the “$400 for a haircut versus $300 for two appointments means no hypocrisy†argument."
Yup, and if I recall correctly, much of the $400 was for travel time, not for the haircut, which means that Romney spent more, not less.
It's all bullshit, of course. Neither of those items should ever have been considered news.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pmYou do realize that $150 per appointment is quite a bit less than $400 more than 60% less. The fact is when on t.v. most men wear makeup? Nice try, but no hypocrisy at all. Thanks for playing though.
Comment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
I do realize that you consider criticism of one's excessive grooming habits and expenditures on same to be hypocritical ONLY when the critic's expenditures reach the same dollar level as the target's, yes.
Oh -- as long as the critic is a Republican and the target is a Democrat. If the political metrics are reversed, then the standard for hypocrisy is much, much lower.
But thanks for trying.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pmPaulB: "It’s all bullshit, of course. Neither of those items should ever have been considered news."
That's absolutely spot on. But, the real question is not the hypocrisy of the candidates. It's the hypocrisy of the media. As Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler continues to point out, Edward's troubling haircut has turned into an ongoing narrative about the candidate. Silly "journalists" simply MUST find a way to fit it into every story about Edwards. He can sit there and talk with struggling workers for hours, propose sweeping measures to help the working class and prevent the off-shoring of jobs, but the "journalist" covering the event will find a way to slip the price of his house or his haircuts into the article describing the event.
My prediction is that "journalists" will find ways to overlook Romney's makeup expenses for their ongoing narrative about Romney, just as they have found ways to ignore his cruel treatment of the family dog. Today's pampered, powdered media elite always look for ways to show deference to Republicans and conservatives, while finding ways to present Democrats as creeps.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pm". . . two separate charges . . ."
July 17th, 2007 at 12:57 pmWell, mitty is two-faced.
#45 You didn’t really answer my question.
Is this a list of Democrats who haven’t signed oin to co-sponsor the bill? Or Democrats who wll vote “no†on the bill?
It’s a pretty crucial distinction, I think you’ll agree.
Comment by spit take — July 17, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Those Democrats have not yet co-sponsored the bill. Yes, its a distinction, you're correct. And it doesn't bode well for the bill's passage. We should all just assume they're going to vote NO and continue to call them. Any other strategy doesn't make sense.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pmMitt like so many other people like to yell loud and make jokes about someone but when it's there turn it's ok. Let's just hope that Mitt didn't use a female service as Larry Flynt does his background checks. Vitter got caught and his wife is now dressing like the lady of the night to keep him home.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pmThose Democrats have not yet co-sponsored the bill. Yes, its a distinction, you’re correct. And it doesn’t bode well for the bill’s passage. We should all just assume they’re going to vote NO and continue to call them. Any other strategy doesn’t make sense.
Comment by Larry from C — July 17, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I'm not sure why you think we should assume that those wh have not co-sponsored the bill will vote "no". It is typical that a bill will only attract the yes votes of its sponsors?
Have any of these Democratic Senators suggested they will vote "no"?
I agree that your strategy of calling them to urge their support is a good idea for such an important bill, but I won't get as alarmed as you are over who does or does not co-sponsor a bill.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pmReal men wear make up right YEP? That's why I like Romney too.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pmThere is nothing hypocritical about it. Romney said he pays $50 for a haircut, which is in line with what he paid here. $150 per visit for 3 services, and Edwards paid $400 for just a haircut. You can’ t win this by distorting facts, there is no hypocrisy here.
Comment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
exactly. You would only concede hypocrisy when Romney's toiletry expenditures matched Edwards'. By extending your logic, Romney could spend up to $399 on a haircut (or on makeup or a facial) and still not be hypocritical. Heck, Romney could probably even get a "happy ending" while at the same time criticizing Bill Clinton's indiscretions and you would be fine with it, as long as the total cost of the session didn't reach your "hypocrisy threshold".
So to sum up, in your view, it's "the total amount of the invoice", not "the double-standard" that determines hypocrisy. Got it.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pmNew nickname: "Man-Spa Mitt."
July 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThe $300 that Mitt spent to uncover his "hidden beauty" is 300 times more money than he has spent over his lifetime on hunting licenses.
(Although, factually, 300 times $0 is zero, but you take my meaning.)
July 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pmThat is not what I am saying at all. Romeny said his haircuts are $50, which when the facts are laid out, that seems to be true. There is no hypocrisy here as I am sure every candidate wears makeup in the debates. Why do you think $50 for a haircut is too much?
Comment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
I exaggerated your position, but yes, you are saying exactly that. Every candidate uses makeup, sure. So does every candidate have his or her hair cut. The right-wing media picks on Edwards for the cost of his haircut, but not for the act of getting a haircut. The implication is two-fold: one, that someone who spends so lavishly on himself cannot possibly be concerned with the poor, and two, Edwards is a girly-man. Romney's trip to a day-spa says exactly the same thing. The only difference is Romney makes no bones about the fact that, being a Republican, he doesn't care squat for the poor.
For me, yes, $50 is too much to pay for a haircut. I can get a perfectly fine haircut for $20. But then, I'm not in the public eye constantly. And I'm really not that vain.
I don't really care how much people pay for their grooming. I know that if you go on TV without makeup, you'll look terrible. What I find despicable, however, is people making political hay out of common minutiae that they indulge in as well.
Yes, that is hypocrisy.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSpit take,
July 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI don't know why you bother when this troll has proven he has no critical thinking skills or knows how to apply logic. It is like 1984; they have been programed to think the doublethink and cannot, I repeat, cannot understand true logic.
My wife and I spend $15 each at SuperCuts. It's like arguing over who has a better Mercedes. Very juvenile. Mitt has less integrity than what I left in the toilet this morning.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pmThanks for the heads-up, Bluedahlia.
I guess after dealing with truly deranged trolls who spew invective like they were exhaling, and name-jack fallen soldiers, I thought that yep, although clearly logic-challenged, at least was willing to respond to what I said rather than a cartoon version of what he thinks a liberal is about.
But yes, I was reaching the conclusion that, at best this guy draws his lines in really weird places. At worst, he's a disingenuous troll.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmActually, TP, this isn't hypocrisy at all. READ THE STORY!!!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pm“So that is $150 per appointment that includes 3 services. When breaking it down like that his quote about $50 for a haircut is about right.â€
No, you didn't comprehend the story. Or you're just spinning yourself crazy, hoping no one notices.
The establishment in question provides 3 (or more accurately 4) services, according to the piece: hair, makeup, men's grooming and spa services.
When asked, the campaign spokesman said the appointment was for makeup. One service. When asked to describe the service provided, the woman said it was makeup. One service. No haircut, no grooming or spa services, whatever they may be, were given or received, according to everyone involved. Romney paid $150 for a makeup job. Nothing else. And yet he had the gall to imply earlier that he is some sort of average guy, and Edwards is not, because he(Romney) only pays $50 for a haircut. Right. Just an ordinary guy dishing out $150 for makeup. Stupid hypocrite.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pmFirst off, who the fuck cares? This is so beneath our side to get into these kind of petty, bullshit back and forths. Quite frankly it's beneath this site to report this kind of junior high dribble. This is the kind of childish argument that will bring the junior high cheer squad to a halt. Let's continue to raise the level of discussion.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pmRomney is very rich and he can afford it, but he is also criticising another rich(Edwards) as a sinner for paying so much to have his hair cut.
The issue here is he is trying to level himself with the average guy, by claiming to spend only $50.00 compared to Edwards ; so he is telling you..'Vote for me, I can feel your pain more than Edwards'...
July 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pmSo does this mean Mitt Romney is not a "natural beauty?" Gee, I'm so disappointed.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pmi can only imagine the mental contortions one of them must go through when it's midday and they remember...they forgot to put on deoderant.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:54 pmLet's see, one millionaire gets a $400 hair cut, another millionaire never spends more than $50 and probably doesn't even leave a tip. Which one has more room to talk about two Americas? What a tight wad.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:25 am