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’…

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.

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.

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.

(Although, factually, 300 times $0 is zero, but you take my meaning.)

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.

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.

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.

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.