At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.Response from the Edwards campaign?
Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.
"He has nice hair," the stylist said of Edwards in an interview. "I try to make the man handsome, strong, more mature and these are the things, as an expert, that's what we do."
"Breaking news -- John Edwards got some expensive haircuts and probably didn't pay enough attention to the bills," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "He didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring Scooter Libby; he just got some expensive haircuts."This story has been dogging you for weeks and that's all you can think of to say? Others did worse?
But why is the friendly hairdresser coming forward with the story of a haircut that cost 3 times as much as the one that already drove people nuts. The hairdresser has feelings. He has pride. When Edwards was asked about that $400 haircut he posited that "the haircuts were some kind of aberration given by 'that guy' his staff had arranged."
"I'm disappointed and I do feel bad. If I know someone, I'm not going to say I don't know them," he said. "When he called me 'that guy,' that hit my ears. It hurt." He paused and then added, "I still like him. . . . I don't want to hurt him."You don't want to.... but....
There's lots of blogging about this story. Let's see what they're saying.
Captain Ed takes it up a notch: "Now it looks like Edwards has an honesty problem as well as questionable use of campaign funds. This wasn't some one-off; Edwards has used Torrenueva for over three years. The Edwards campaign's attempt to spin this as a single case of bad judgment by a staffer shows a less-than-honest approach to errors by Edwards, which should concern people considering his candidacy seriously, a number that appears to drop on a weekly basis anyway."
TBogg mocks WaPo for following the story at all: "Woodward and Bernstein were pussies compared to Solomon. I smell Pulitzer." Anonymous Liberal takes the same tack: "[T]he article is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with mainstream political reporting... a tour de force of triviality and passive aggressiveness." (A "tour de force of triviality and passive aggressiveness"? -- sounds like everything we want in a blog. How dare MSM horn in!)
The Democratic Daily says: "Didn’t the WaPo’s John Solomon have anything better to do with his time then chase down a prima dona [sic] Hollywood stylist for the scoop?" Brilliant at Breakfast: "If we're going to flog insignificant bullshit, can we at least flog Mitt Romney's treatment of animals just as much?"
Bit of a pattern, no? Let's call it Democratic pattern blogging. Somehow none of the Democratic bloggers can see the deeper credibility issue perceived by our Captain. Which is fine. But must they all say the same thing? And why do they think it's smart just to say that? Obviously, the $400 story hurt Edwards a lot. Now, here's the $1,250 story. It's out. Bitch about The Washington Post's "triviality" all you want, but the story will hurt Edwards, and, really, as self-respecting bloggers looking for readers, why do you all want to keep repeating the same thing?
I take the time to read all the liberal bloggers on the story, and what I learn is that they are boring. They all offer advice to The Washington Post, but look what they are: boring! Clue: You're writers. Say something new!
But maybe you're not writers. You're more good soldiers for the cause. Fine. But I'm not the cause. I'm a reader. If you show your allegiance is other than to the reader, I'm gone.
ADDED: I should say that I think it's important for a presidential candidate to get a proper haircut. The money should be spent on a good haircut, as well as on appropriate makeup and clothes. I'm not shocked that he spent the money, just that he didn't do it in a way that controlled the information. It's obviously the sort of thing that people make a big deal about -- a stupid distraction, but entirely predictable. I can't believe that after making the mistake of letting the story about he $400 haircut come out, the Edwards campaign did not keep Torrenueva happy enough not to opening up to the WaPo. The mistake wasn't spending $1,250 on a haircut. It was calling Torrenueva "that guy."
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
Anybody who has seen the video of him fussing with his hair for what seems like an hour knows that this is a guy with some very unusual issues about how his hair looks.
At first, the haircuts were free.
Sounds like a cautionary tale about drug abuse. "Hey kid, just try it. It's free!"
oh brother. so he wants to look good when ann coulter gets her wish to have him killed?
priorities people. priorities.
I guess one of the many morals of the story is don't disparage your hair stylists-he will come back and nail you. He is not "that guy" but obviously someone who thinks of himself as an important stylist and therefore took offense to being called "that guy". Be kind to you stylist if you are in the public eye or he will bite you in the ass.
Also, John Edwards campaign seems to be going nowhere. At least this story makes him a little more interesting. Hypocrital but interesting.
credibility issue? over haircuts? you're so serious
oh brother. so he wants to look good when ann coulter gets her wish to have him killed?
Now you've stooped to lying, I see. How low will you go while wearing your new brownshirt remains an open question.
I detest Ann Coulter, have zero interest in defending her, and would be quite happy if she ceased to appear in newspapers or on television shows anywhere, but even someone with a pea brain such as yours appears to have shriveled to as a result of your hate ought know that context matters. The transcript of those remarks you intentionally misrepresent is clear: no such intent on Coulter's part.
It seems to me that you have completely lost your moral bearings in your rage against reality. Anyone who does business or comes into contact with you ought be very careful. Very careful, indeed.
At the end of the day, John Edwards will still be a very rich man. He can then go back to his original barber, after this, once again, failed attempt for the presidency.
"priorities people. priorities"
It's not the haircut, hdhouse, it's the hypocrisy. Here we have a politician who self-identifies as the champion of the poor, the advocate for the other America, the mill-worker's son, and so on. And yet there's this totally bizarre expenditure on narcissism, apparently increasing exponentially. The $1,200 haircut becomes a legitimate subject for political discussion because it so clearly exposes the falsity of Edwards' persona.
He ought to cut his own hair and give the difference to the poor, like Samson did.
Ann,
Posting about Edwards' haircuts is boring. You're a writer. Say something new.
Ann, how exactly is Capt. Ed not showing "allegiance to the cause"? What campaign in the history of campaigns hasn't tried to minimize stupid, personal faux pas? But wait, it's a matter that should concern us seriously! Is this man fit to be president????? Capt. Ed is a blowhard, and just as devoted to partisan spin as the liberal bloggers you criticize.
I wonder, will you find an array of creative and varied comments about this on conservative blogs, or will they all take the same basic approach as the good Captain? Making them, you know, boring bloggers?
I take the time to read all the liberal bloggers on the story, and what I learn is that they are boring.
Boy, no one puts together a critique like Althouse, huh? I mean the logic of the argument is so tight, the supporting evidence so overwhelming... it's just not fair, really.
I mean what could be more boring than people complaining about haircut stories? Haircut stories are fun and exciting! Plus, they raise serious issues about candidates and it's obvious that Edwards is a hypocrite and a phony for paying so much for them.
The problem with liberal bloggers is that they think being trivial and passive aggressive are bad things! Thus, they'll never be as fun to read as Ann.
I love this bit at the end:
"What I did was, there was too much hair on top, always falling down, and it made him look too youthful. I took the top down and balanced everything out. He couldn't see it. But then we went into the bathroom. He looked in the mirror and said, 'I love this,' and that was it."
If a post is boring, Wade, don't read it. And don't comment on it either. Since when did you start wasting time on boring blogs
tjl: To me, the hypocriscy is pretty much par for the course for a politician. So is telling a modified version of the truth about something embarrassing when first confronted about it. Still, it is slightly amazing how many still think they can get away with that after the mountains of accumulated evidence to the contrary compiled over the past couple of decades.
The story itself is one of no great consequence to me, but I admit that the contortions involved in the "limited, modified hang-out" response to such a petty and largely irrelevant issue (to abuse a Nixonian phrase) are mildly entertaining.
Well, after reading TBlogg, the guy doesn't seem to have anything interesting to say about anything. Or maybe, July and June were bad months.
I hope Bob Wright doesn't put him on BHTV.
Given the pattern of response by lefty bloggers, I wonder if there were any Townhouse Talking Points (TM) released about this?
The reason more than one blogger got angry about the ridiculous Solomon story is that the Solomon story was ridiculous.
If you want to think of it as a conspiracy or a sign of slavish devotion to a cause, fine. But it could just be that some reporters suck and get called on it by more than one person.
i've long argued that one should never underestimate the fury of a stylist scorned. a few vindictive snips, and you can't go out in daylight for a week.
i'm savoring the incredible awkwardness that will define edwards' barber appointments for the rest of his life. even if he now goes back to normal neighborhood barbers for $20 a pop, you just know he'll have to tip huge.
p.s. how about some equal time here? don't forget to make fun of Obama and the maharishi, too!
Doyle, I was pretty much with you in spirit if not tone right up to:
The problem with liberal bloggers is that they think being trivial and passive aggressive are bad things!
Then you lost me. Haven't seen much actual evidence of that (unless it was not to their benefit). Matt Yglesias is one name that immediately came to mind. An otherwise great blogger who, for some reason, feels the need to stick it to other bloggers he doesn't like (particularly Glenn Reynolds) on a fairly frequent basis over what seem to me to be exceedingly trivial matters.
Why are lefties so utterly obsessed with useless tu quoque attacks? Look at the response by Edwards' spokesman - she doesn't try to explain why pretty boy spends more getting a haircut than most people earn in a month, but instead pulls out a classic "Bush Lied, People Died!"
The "hey, look over THERE!" tactic is the left's greatest weakness. They, as a whole, seem utterly incapable of honest self-assessment. Whenever confronted with something that might pierce their sense of absolute righteousness, they go into a mental block and chant, "Repugs bad, I'm not a Repug, therefore I'm good," until the unclean thoughts are purged from their mind.
You weren't with me in tone? How disappointing!
Speaking of evidence, how about some indication of what criticism of Reynolds by Yglesias you're referring to?
Frankly, Reynolds is such a disgusting, lying hack I find it hard to believe Yglesias would settle for nitpicking, but I'm open to persuasion.
The haircut issue makes it very hard for me to consider voting for Edwards. However, Ann adds
"as self-respecting bloggers looking for readers, why do you all want to keep repeating the same thing?"
And you don't? Check out the 'fundamental attribution error'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Is this what you meant?
Personally I think Reynolds's assassination plan for Iran was both "substantive" and worthy of derision.
Ann, how exactly is Capt. Ed not showing "allegiance to the cause"?
Good question, Beth, as he's pretty up front about being extremely partisan.
What campaign in the history of campaigns hasn't tried to minimize stupid, personal faux pas?
Most if not all. Fewer and fewer are succeeding these days, so its probably best not to prevaricate about something as easily discovered as how often did he see the guy, etc. "Take your licks, get it over with and move on" seems to be a hard concept for politicians in either party. [See Romney: pet carrier]
Capt. Ed is a blowhard, and just as devoted to partisan spin as the liberal bloggers you criticize.
As you say, most of them are most of the time, Captain Ed included. Too bad, because when they aren't, they are far more interesting and influential, I think. (I'm not saying they must criticize their own to be interesting, just not parrot what often ends up sounding like the party line/ official talking points memo of the day.)
I wonder, will you find an array of creative and varied comments about this on conservative blogs, or will they all take the same basic approach as the good Captain?
I think we know the answer to that! We could probably write their blog posts for them ;-)
No Doyle, it wasn't.
"Reynolds is such a disgusting, lying hack"
Prove it.
Well I guess I'm just going to have to live with the knowledge that somewhere out there, someone thinks Matt Yglesias is unfair to Glenn Reynolds, even if I don't know why.
I don't intend to say that Capt. Ed isn't partisan. Obviously, he is. I just didn't see the same lock-step on the right. The lefty bloggers touched off my fear of pod people.
You weren't with me in tone? How disappointing!
I'm sorry to hear that. (Reminds me of my mother's admonition not to harbor expectations about the behavior of others. It spares one the later disappointment ;-)
Speaking of evidence, how about some indication of what criticism of Reynolds by Yglesias you're referring to?
I'm not particuraly interested in trotting out chapter and verse via hyperlinks for you to nitpick word by word. I've been reading Yglesias for over four years now and am comfortable with my personal assessment of his superior writing and argumentation skills and his periodic shortcomings. Just an off-the-cuff remark about my personal impression. YMMV.
Frankly, Reynolds is such a disgusting, lying hack
I'm not surprised that you think that. I think he's basically like the rest of us, we all have our own version of reality, tend to seek out and trumpet those things and people who confirm it, at the same time tending to downplay or ignore incovenient evidence when it appears that reality is not quite what we imagined it to be. That's pretty much standard human behavior, it seems to me. Basic survival skills, if you will (you probably won't ;-)
I find it hard to believe Yglesias would settle for nitpicking, but I'm open to persuasion.
I don't doubt you do. I do doubt you are, however (based on your extensive public record here at Althouse ). NTTIAWWT. I'm all for free expression.
Considering his Two Americas message has him in the single digits in the polls, any coverage should be good coverage, at least it keeps his name out there.
Edwards couldn’t even carry his own state as the Dem running mate; bemoans the great chasm between rich and poor while building a Taj Mahal house and gets $400 haircuts. Yeah there is a credibility issue there and no he’s not fit to be President.
Ann also wrote: "But maybe you're not writers. You're more good soldiers for the cause. Fine. But I'm not the cause. I'm a reader. If you show your allegiance is other than to the reader, I'm gone"
I agree with the above statement, but I have found that it is not exclusive to liberal bloggers, and there are exceptions on both sides. All of the blogs you have cited in this post seem about agitprop, not about writing. When I occasionally visit them....I approach them with that mindset.
However, you might also want to look up the meaning of the psychological term "splitting". You, like the liberal blogs you so often bash, and like the conservative blogs that you much less frequently go after, engage in it constantly. One side is all bad and the other is all good (with the very occasional exception).
Do you not see this pattern in your own writing?....and if you find it so dysfunctional in others, would it not also be an impediment when you do it? It is embodied in your "writing" as much as it impacts the material you so often find boring. Do you have any desire to improve your material? If so, you may want to consider applying your insightful observations of others to yourself.
You fancy yourself a "writer". I would think that good writing may often involve honest and intensive self-appraisal. Personally, I strongly suspect that I would find your stuff much more compelling if I found evidence of it.
He could hire an army with his money, instead he pays too much for a hair cut. This has non-issue written all over it. The two Americas stuff is taken care of by referring to his mansion. That shows that he is another of the hyper wealthy whom assumes a position of feeling guilty about it without practicing frugality and/or charity. That boat has sailed quite nicely without any hair cuts.
And so he obsesses with his hair? Who cares? He does not obsess about perping little boys or Jihad or Roswell, so he is ahead (heh) of the game as far as I am concerned.
His stated policies are a nightmare, that is enough.
Trey
Here's a good one:
I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly -- they just want Bush to lose the war on terror. link
Of course, it's not just liberals that Reynolds says are undermining the War on Terror, which otherwise would be going great. It's the media!
WHY DON'T AL QAEDA ATROCITIES GET MEDIA ATTENTION?
Because that might help Bush. link
That's the essence of Reynolds' worldview. That America would (and should) be able to invade countries and assassinate our enemies with impunity if it weren't for the treacherous liberals and their vice grip on the media.
Putting aside the fact that he has been calling the war a success from the outset, and insisting that the only reason we were failing was because we hadn't done more indiscriminate killing, his perpetuation of the right-wing nutjob media myth is a big problem for me.
So yes, I call him a liar and a fascist and a buffoon. Prove that he isn't.
From Bill's "that woman" to JE's "that guy." It's all so post-modern, in an All the Nameless sort of way.
"I call him a liar and a fascist and a buffoon. Prove that he isn't"
As the one making the fevered accusations, the burden is on Doyle to prove that he is.
Bonus Reynolds link here.
(So prescient! So wise!)
Ronin, it would be refreshing to see Edwards just pony up and say, "Hey, I have big bucks, I have great hair, and I'm gonna work 'em both."
There's still more than a year to go. Maybe someone will take that route, and if they do, I'll be paying attention.
Beth, yes it would. It would be quite a refreshing change from normal political operating procedure. Probably won't happen, though. Those deep in holes rarely recognize their need to stop digging until it is to late to do anything but crawl out, defeated.
Doyle, what does the term "fascism" mean to you? I was so non-plussed by your repeated statements that Reynolds is a fascist that I felt compelled to check and see if the definition of fsacism had changed in the last 24 hours or something:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
As far as I can see, it hasn't.
Well I guess Reynolds only has the militarism, nationalism, corporatism, authoritarianism and racism going, so "fascist" may have been overly strong, but the more stab-in-the-back bullshit he spews the better the shoe fits.
Can you really read that April 2003 post without getting a little flavor of what I'm talking about? The wrongness, the triumphalism... the touch of madness?
1. Doyle is just sad that he doesn't have a soapbox with millions and millions of hits. It's also interesting that he, like so many of his crazed fellow leftists -- equates "disagrees with Doyle" with "liar," "fascist," and "buffoon."
2. Has it not occurred to anyone that this story was very likely encouraged by the opposition research personnel of Democratic candidates? You have to trust me on this one, lefties: Republicans don't want to do anything to discourage Edwards's candidacy.
That Reynolds has made mistakes is beyond dispute. Everyone does. But, Glenn Reynolds is a racist? Who knew? (As in, I doubt you have a leg to stand on with that one.)
As for Reynolds being a corporatist, it seems to me that you are stretching mightily there as well. From Wikipedia once again:
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. These civic assemblies, known as corporations (not necessarily in the same sense as contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
I was more disturbed that Edwards a) wasn't paying for them initially, and b) making this poor guy (relatively speaking) take off from his job to chase Edwards to the four corners of America to deliver the cuts. You want a haircut, go see your stylist and pay him or her when the service is rendered. "My people handle that." Give me a break.
Glenn Reynolds is a pretty radical libertarian. He is for limited government. Therefore, he cannot be a fascist.
He is a well-published professor. I believe that he attended Yale. Where do you teach, Doyle? Which Ivy did you attend?
IR, why don't you just post links rather than quoting long definitions? I'm sure Ann would appreciate it.
On the charge of racism, I give you Evolution in action.
I love it. Doyle is spending his day trying to prove that Glenn Reynolds is a racist. Awesome.
How is it not evolution in action when people stupidly do not get vaccinations against diseases?
Keep digging, Doyle. At least you are staying out of trouble.
making this poor guy (relatively speaking) take off from his job to chase Edwards to the four corners of America to deliver the cuts.
It seems to me that no one made anyone do anything. Edwards asked him to come and cut his hair. He went and cut Edwards's hair. When he presented his bills, Edwards paid him. Handsomely, it appears.
He is for limited government.
Yes, he's such a principled libertarian, and so independent of the GOP, that his response to the (ongoing) NSA wiretapping scandal was Clinton did it, too.
Note: He also used the term "Bushitler" to signify that he's not one of those people who has a real problem with the president breaking the law.
the (ongoing) NSA wiretapping scandal
There's a scandal like that in Chicago, where I live. What's happening is, the city has set up these black poles along several streets, and you have to put money in them if you want to park there.
It's an outrage! A gross injustice! It's against the law.
Wait. What's that? It's authorized by the government under a legally-made law? Oh. Never mind.
Doyle, I just went to your link, and found nothing racist. Did the definition of racism change?
When he presented his bills, Edwards paid him. Handsomely, it appears.
With campaign donations, it appears.
Much of which was donated to him by people who have never paid more than $20 for a haircut in their life.
Two Americas indeed.
Doyle--I am just one of the stupid sheeple, but please explain to me how an article that GR links to about Muslims refusing vaccinations is racist. The only thing we know is that GR prefaces it with "evolution in action," which tell me (1) GR apparently believes in evolution and (2) that is devout muslims refuse vaccinations, the process of evolution will eventually subject some of them to extinction. What did I miss? How is this racist?
Why don't you explain why being rich and caring about the poor makes you a hypocrite?
I mean its a recurring theme in the coverage of the Edwards campaign so it must be true, but it seems like a progressive millionaire is arguing against his own interest.
Help me see the light.
...Wherein Doyle realizes he looks like a complete and total moron and stops talking about Glenn Reynolds.
Why don't you explain why being rich and caring about the poor makes you a hypocrite?
It's like sermonizing about the poor starving people in Africa while sitting your obese butt down to a luxurious prime rib dinner.
Or....worrying and lecturing eveyone about the homeless in San Francisco, while you make sure to cross the street so you won't be accosted by the panhandling bums who smell bad.
Or.....preaching that global warming is going to end life as we know it unless everyone cuts back on energy usage while you are jetting around the world and personally using massive amounts of energy.
Hypocrisy is saying one thing, while you do another. If you truly care about something, you lead by example.
The bigger issue in the hairgate scandal isn't the cost of the hair cut but the covering up, lying and evading of the issue. If Edwards and his campaign are this disingenuous about the little things, imagine what big things they are covering up.
That's it, Seven. I've been totally convinced that Glenn Reynolds isn't a preening, blithering idiot who was hopelessly, embarrassingly wrong about the war and its critics, and thinks advocating the wanton destruction of Muslims makes him a tough guy.
I don't know what ever gave me that idea. I sure hope lots more people read him and find out how much mainstream reporters want to see Al Qaeda win and institute Sharia in America.
He may be our only hope!
I'm just annoyed that my daughter could give Edwards a better haircut for half the price!
Doyle -- It sounds like you spend quite a good deal of time at Instapundit. Perhaps you should spend less time focusing on things you hate.
If course, it's really the conservatives (and the libertarians?) who hate. That's why you must use invective such as preening, blithering idiot...advocating the wanton destruction of Muslims to describe him. If only those who disagree with you could be as cordial, there would be less strife in politics.
Also, Reynolds is right about the war.
So the only people who are allowed to call attention to income inequality are poor people? If that's the rule, it's a stupid one.
People who amass enough political power (say in the form of the presidency) to do something about it tend not to be poor themselves.
Hypocrisy is pretending to care about poor people (Compassionate Conservatism) and then taking every possible step to funnel more of our country's wealth to the super-rich.
Should Edwards get elected and then fail to keep his promises to help the poor, he would be exposed as a hypocrite, but he's not a hypocrite for making them while rich.
People who want to help the poor don't spend $1250 on a haircut. They spend $35 on a haircut and give $1215 to the poor.
They don't live in 30,000 square-foot houses, either. They get a 5000 square-foot house and trade in the 25,000 square feet to help the poor.
How could Edwards possibly be in a better position to help the poor as president than he was as a very wealthy senator, or very wealthy private citizen?
Doyle, Muslims are not a race, but I think you know that already. You provided a laundry list of things Reynolds supposedly is. All of those have standard meanings, and it seems to me that not only have you ignored them (to your peril, as they say) but you have yet to prove even one that you mention, while overlooking the one thing you could prove.
FWIW, while a good case could be made that Reynolds usually writes comments about military affairs in general, and Iraq in particular, that are exceedingly favorable to the Bush Adminsitration, I think it is next to impossible to find evidence that Reynolds is a miltarist or even a fellow-traveller of militarism.
I think the same holds true for any attempt to pin the label "nationalist" upon him.
That's not to say there aren't many very good reasons to criticize some of the positions Reynolds takes and issues he advoctes. There are. (And you pointed to some worthy of criticism.)
All the major presidential candidates are rich, and live like rich people. Edwards distinguishes himself by being the most vocal about the issue of poverty. That's Edwards's crime. His personal wealth and expenditures wouldn't be an issue for Drudge and company if he'd just STFU about how many poor we have in this country.
We're electing a president, not a monk.
What Edwards needs!
Imagine the photo ops. Imagine the blogging potential..
I can just imagine.
All the major presidential candidates are rich, and live like rich people.
Doyle, I know quite a few rich people and none spend $400 much less $1250 on a haircut. Personally he can spend all he wants on his follicles for all I care but I think his Two America message doesn't resonate well with the 'po folk' when he's spending more than they make in a month on his hair.
Perception is reality to a lot of people and while he may really care about the poor, it simply doesn't help his image to spend money in such a way that most people see as wasteful. Some people see that as overcompensation for other shortcomings.
I for one hope that Edwards wins the democratic nomination!
The only important issue here is that there are two Americas, and we need to discourage the hair-styling, gelling, blowing, spraying, plugging, permanenting and primping male one. Real men in this country should only run a comb over their head, get a trim every other week, and go bald with confidence (or maybe with the help of a razor).
Men are far more appealing if they don't look as if they look in the mirror a lot. I read somewhere that Romney is even thinking about making his coif a little less perfect. Either he'll have to pay a hair stylist big bucks to mess it up a little, or take a ride in Gore's Prius.
All I know is he can't be all bad if he held down that fox so the other kids wouldn't be endangered.
(What? If you're going to get politics in my human interest story, I'm going to pretend there's human interest in your political stories.)
Hypocrits do not make good presidents. Especially not untruthful hypocrits.
Thus, the whole haircut issue is important because it reveals yet more of John Edward's hypocrisy.
People who actually care about the poor and want to help them do not amass vas piles of personal wealth, live in 28,000 sq foot homes, earn 70,000 dollars for a speaking gig, or spend $400 on a haircut.
Why on earth should people contribute money to John Edwards campaign when it might suck up all the contributions from ten or twenty well meaning citizens just to get a single haircut for him?
Although it's vastly amusing watching all the liberal lemmings talk about how it's in poor taste to focus on such trivialities. I don't remember them saying that when Bush was being mocked for his frequent word manglings. Surely that's just a triviality as well?
And Doyle is just another ignoramus who throws out the 'nazi' card whenever someone disagrees with him. Otherwise, he'd understand that a libertarian and a fascist stand on opposite sides of the political plane.
I for one think John Edward's hair is beautiful and shiny. $1250 is not too much to pay for such an alluring coiffure.
All the other candidates are just jealous.
Hypocrites do not make good presidents.
Please. Like there's a politician out there who isn't a hypocrite.
George W. Bush on 2-11-04: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. Well, his actions last week put a whole new spin on that quote. Taken care of indeed!
1. An entire post about hair, and no Maxine. What gives?
2. MadisonMan, you gotta admit that Bush did in fact "take care of" Libby. But I expect you meant something rather different.
Maybe MM means Bush should've taken care of Armitage.
Perhaps the Kedwards duo didn't make it because their fasitidiously perfect and expensive hair drew attention to vainglorious, swelled and empty heads.
pogo, when I heard the quote back in '04, I thought what anyone would: the leaker'd be taken out to the dog house and paddled, or something. Now I realize that Bush may have meant something else entirely, which I guess doesn't make him a hypocrite! At least, I can't use that quote as an example of a President who's a hypocrite. But there are probably other Bush quotes that would work.
These politicians are so sneaky. Pity the person to whom Mr. Bush originally used the taken care of quote didn't ask if that meant he was gonna pardon them/commute their sentence!
Ann Althouse said...
I just didn't see the same lock-step on the right. The lefty bloggers touched off my fear of pod people.
Seems you have some pretty significant blind spots. As a result, your writings on politics often appears gutless and inadvertently comical.
Re: when I heard the quote back in '04, I thought what anyone would
Well that oughta teacherize ye. In politics, words mean exactly what you want them to mean!
Edwards' poll standings and personal circumstances all indicate a 'vanity campaign' at this point. His poor wife is probably dying of cancer, but they have obviously made the decision that they both want to carry on and give some purpose to their lives at this point.
Who can blame them?
I just don't buy the business that it was John Edwards' selfishness and pride that dictated he carry on the campaign. Moping around waiting for death is probably how neither of them wanted to spend this time.
Edwards is a very rich man, and, frankly, to me his work as a trial lawyer is not an attractive way to have made his money. That said, he has every right to spend $1250 on any damn thing he wants, as long as he reimburses his campaign for what is obviously an extravagance.
For my part, if I wanted to look better for $1250, I would spend it on a new blazer and maybe some slacks and continue with my current $20 haircuts, which, from my barber at least, look every bit as good as Edwards' doo. I'm sure Joe would be happy to show up anywhere, anytime for what Edwards is willing to pay. If Edwards cares that much about working people, he might consider spreading some of that wealth around a bit more thinly, or at least make some vague pretense of modesty in his mode of life.
That way, we would have no need to worry about what bloggers or Washington Post reporters might say.
That's a very lame piece from a very lame reporter, John Solomon. He's made a career of going after Democratic politicians.
Do we even have to debate that this is a fluff piece? About hair?
Althouse, look at all the energy you dedicate to furthering a right wing/vapid press story that affects NO-ONE.
Please save this post for the next time you ask yourself why you get criticized so much from The Left. It's got it all; reinforcing right-wing themes, vapidness, distraction, plain burning stupidity.
With the shape the nation's in, this is the level of discourse from UW's Ann Althouse. Hair.
tjl makes the same mistake as others; by their flawed lights if you advocate against poverty, you must live in poverty:
It's not the haircut, hdhouse, it's the hypocrisy. Here we have a politician who self-identifies as the champion of the poor, the advocate for the other America, the mill-worker's son, and so on. And yet there's this totally bizarre expenditure on narcissism, apparently increasing exponentially.
Wealthy people can still say "we need to get serious about the problem of poverty in this country."
You don't have to wear a hairshirt to urge action on poverty. By that mind-boggling line, only about 5 Senators could vote on an anti-poverty bill. The rest would be hypocrites.
Judas Priest, this whole subject is batty.
"I'm not the cause. I'm a reader. If you show your allegiance is other than to the reader, I'm gone."
Have they ever shown their allegiance to be with the reader? How long will it take you to realize that their allegiance is to the cause and not to the reader?
If you keep reading them, why on earth would they change?
Then again, I stopped reading most left and right blogs long ago. They haven't changed. They won't change. They are what they are. And we are what we are, if we read them or if we don't.
just days after a clear cut presidential obstruction of justice, and all here want to talk about hair cuts.
how non partisan
Re: a clear cut presidential obstruction of justice
Funniest damn thing written all day.
Theo -- The issue is that he used campaign funds for haircuts. If it's his personal money, it's stupid but different.
Seven--Exactly. That's what I said, although it wasn't perhaps as clear as it could be. He should reimburse the campaign and spend his money on anything he wants.
As a politician, trimming both his hair and his personal lifestyle might help his appearance.
Great credibility-destroying statements of all-time:
"People want to know if their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook." - Richard M. Nixon
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." - Bill Clinton
"I just didn't see the same lock-step on the right." - Ann Althouse
Grover Norquist has weekly meetings with conservative bloggers and pundits to ensure their ideological purity and make certain that everybody holding themselves out as a conservative is on the same page. On the other hand, the Democratic party and leftists in general are far less organized and have well-documented self-destructive in-fighting/circular firing squad tendencies. Try getting your facts straight from time to time.
Which is dumber:
1. Wade not getting the fox/Fox pun and getting all political?
2. Wade suggesting that Grover Norquist is leading the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?
Discuss.
There is no vast right-wing conspiracy, but Althouse's suggestion that the left-wing pundits are more in "lock-step" than the right-wing pundits is ridiculous.
Grover Norquist has weekly meetings with conservative bloggers and pundits to ensure their ideological purity and make certain that everybody holding themselves out as a conservative is on the same page.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall:
"Norquist's themes are those of the Islamist apologist organizations like CAIR and the American Muslim Council: informed critics of Islamofascism and advocates of American interests like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney are portrayed as bigots, and key law enforcement tools against domestic terrorism are alleged to be nefarious infringments of civil rights. When Norquist attempted to enlist James Woolsey to his cause on the latter score, Gaffney powerfully established that Norquist was all but lying." -- Scott Johnson (Power Line)
"Norquist owes a public apology to fellow Republicans whom he has smeared as bigots for raising fundamental questions about Alamoudi and the Islamist-supporting apparatus in America. More importantly, Norquist owes answers about why he partnered with a known terrorist sympathizer, whether or not he now defends Alamoudi, when he plans to stop hiding behind the race card, and what exactly he plans to do to disavow Islamist influences." -- Michelle Malkin
internet ronin
coulter said what she said.
get a life.
I did want to address Althouse's main question here, which is why can't liberal bloggers be more interesting about the haircut story.
My observation is that the haircut story doesn't really fascinate liberals. We don't spend time reflecting on the greater meaning of haircuts. That's for far more superficial minds.
It's a pretty cut and dried case of standard partisan attack politics that get picked up by vapid reporters, many with their own hair issues.
And, also picked up by vapid bloggers, for whom hair should be much less important.
"tjl makes the same mistake as others; by their flawed lights if you advocate against poverty, you must live in poverty"
Not exactly. No one would expect politicians to don hair shirts and sandals before credibly speaking about poverty. But there is some line that Edwards has crossed here. Unlike other politicians, inequality is central to his message. Because Edwards chose inequality as his signature issue, it's un seemly and insulting to flaunt his self-indulgence. After all, Marie Antoinette read Rousseau. She believed she became one with her people when she dressed as a shepherdess and tended a beautifully-groomed flock in a Peasant Village built especially for her.
The people somehow didn't see it that way.
BTW, the writer of the referenced article, John Solomon claimed this was news although the story was told three months ago.
And the right wing press and bloggers are still flogging this tired, stale superficial non-story.
Exhibit 439 of Ann Althouse doing her part for the right wing echo chamber - intended or not.
Come on, the Washington Post 'right-wing?' There is, no doubt, a reason as to why this came out now in the way it did. I'm almost certain the backstory here has more to do with internal Democratic Party backstabbing than any right-left nonsense. After all, the Republicans are having wet dreams about the unlikely event of an Edwards candidacy. Obvious partisan hack-job websites are not the best source of insightful political commentary.
And tjl is exactly right. It is unseemly and bad politics to be so cluelessly rich, even if one's motivations are to the good. Whether getting a diamond necklace or a $1250 haircut, appearances count.
On the other hand, it's nothing you should lose your head over.
What I don't see from Alpha Liberal or hdhouse or the other liberals here is asking why Edwards could be a senator for a complete term and have done absolutely zilch and that as a result we should think that he would do anything now. In his term he could have done something to benefit the two Americas he keeps harping on and the poor he keeps harping on but he did not. We hear all about his mill worker father but his father was the superintendent of the mill, not a humble mill worker. Edwards made his money on the backs of the poor by siphoning off all his fees from their pain through courtroom tricks and then forgetting them. I love his attitude to his neighbor who has lived there for a couple of generations. He on the other hand moved in there, built himself a MacMansion gone wild and then done all he can to make it impossible for the neighbor to live in his family home. Then his wife comes out and says she won't speak to this neighbor. So neighborly. Condescending twits is a lot more like it.
gosh, i don't know Dick....I'll ask Fred Thompson. Maybe he can shed some light on under-qualified.
But there is some line that Edwards has crossed here. Unlike other politicians, inequality is central to his message.
Exactly. Just like Kerry making his vietnam cowardice & fraud the center of his campaign. Or Al Gore having a carbon footprint 20x the average. Edwards has staked his campaign's claim on championing the poor while selfishly spending $1250 on frivolous excesses. Its the same old lefty hypocrisy - Edwards want everyone else to rescue the poor while he basks in his wealth. Just another example that The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About
Please. Like there's a politician out there who isn't a hypocrite.
And we've had few good president's lately. I sense a correlation.
George Washington, at least, was not a hypocrite. It is possible.
.........
Also, I find it intriguing how ready liberals are to deploy cries of 'hypocrisy' on the icons of the religious right, when they preach one thing and do another, but yet those same liberals are singularly reticient to admit charges of hypocrisy against their own icons who preach one thing and do another.
If you have an affair and cheat on your wife, you have no business talking about morality.
If you get $400 haircuts and own a 28,000 mansion, you have no business complaining about wealth inequality. You are being wasteful with the money given you, instead of using to to help remedy the situation you claim is so dire.
If you fly a private jet all over the place, own fleets of gas guzzling cars, and use 20x more energy than the average American, you have no business complaining about global warming and how we're all going to need to make sacrifices to curb our carbon output.
It's ironic, given the Reynolds bashing here, that Glenn has, I think, the best take on this story: "I don't think he'll be much of a cost-cutter. . . ."
Beth: Capt. Ed is a blowhard
What an incredibly ignorant remark. Captain Ed is anything but that. You must think WaPo is a right-wing rag?
So then, that settles it.
John Edwards treats his hair like Mitt Romney treats hisa dog.
Blow dried across a long distance.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा