Emphasizing what really matters — redux

A blog post from the Politico kicked off the John-Edwards-haircut frenzy a couple of months ago, but today, the Politico has a similar story that’s embarrassing for Mitt Romney.

What kinds of things do you think of when you hear “communications consulting”? Speechwriting? Message strategy?

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 with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico.

“We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time,” said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as “communications consulting” because it was paid from the communications division’s budget.

I guess this is supposed to be good news for Dems. “See? Turnabout is fair play! If Edwards’ hairstylist is the most important aspect of his presidential campaign to political reporters, then Romney’s expensive makeup job should now be the subject of endless speculation and scrutiny, too!”

But I don’t see it that way at all. I don’t want competing vapid stories that take turns skewering one side, then the other. Equal-opportunity fluff has a modicum of fairness to it, but I much prefer far less fluff.

As Kevin Drum put it, “Seriously. Can we just stop this stuff? Does anyone really think that the problem with presidential campaign coverage is that it isn’t vapid and half-witted enough already?

For those keeping score at home, I’m keeping a frequently-updated list on this stuff.

* In June, Chris Matthews got a little creepy in praising Fred Thompson, going so far as to compliment the former senator’s odor: “Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of — a little bit of cigar smoke?”

* Also in June, viewers of CNN’s American Morning heard a similar comment about Mitt Romney from anchor Alina Cho: “He looks great, sounds great, smells great.”

* Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon declared former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the winner of the June 5 Republican presidential debate and attributed Romney’s victory, in part, to the fact that he is “[s]trong, clear, gives good soundbite, and has shoulders you could land a 737 on.” (Simon has previously described Romney as having “chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest.”)

* Bill O’Reilly has praised Romney’s jaw and hair.

* NewsMax has gushed about Romney’s appearance: “First, he has sensational good looks. People magazine named him one of the 50 most beautiful people in America. Standing 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Romney has jet-black hair, graying naturally at the temples. Women — who will play a critical role in this coming election — have a word for him: hot.”

* Newsmax also praised Ann Romney’s appearance: “Ann is warm and very natural. She has the look of an outdoors woman bred to be an equestrian, which she is — good carriage, rosy complexion, square jaw, and blond mane. When she is not flashing her truly unbelievable smile, she may lower her eyes demurely. But Ann Romney is not demure — she may be modest, but she isn’t meek. She is unpretentious, but she isn’t shy. She lowers her eyes, thinking, and then looks up directly at her interviewer and dazzles him with that smile.”

* Chris Matthews is worried about whether Al Gore had plastic surgery: “Do you think, uh, do you think, Jill, he’s had cosmetic surgery around the eyes, below the eyes? What do you think? … You don’t want to talk about that one? Everybody’s so afraid of that one, but I think there’s some work been done. It looks pretty good actually.”

* Dennis Kuninich’s wife’s appearance is drawing scrutiny: “Whatever might be said about her husband’s politics, Mrs. Dennis Kucinich has exquisitely crunchy tastes in clothes-shopping: she buys a lot at resale shops and thrift stores. I’m never prouder of my wife than when she brings out Baby Nora in some gorgeous piece of clothing, and I think, ‘Oh gawd, how much did that set me back?’ — and Julie says, ‘Got that for 50 cents at the Salvation Army — isn’t it beautiful?'”

* Barack Obama’s ears have drawn Rush Limbaugh’s attention: “[I]f the guy’s sensitive about his big ears, we need to give him a new name, like Dumbo. But that doesn’t quite get it. How about Barack Obama Hussein Odumbo.”

* John Edwards’ appearance has drawn more scrutiny than almost any other aspect of his campaign.

* And don’t even get me started on the media’s interest in Hillary Clinton’s choice of clothes and her personal appearance.

Obviously, some degree of superficiality is expected in any presidential campaign, but this has quickly reached an excessive level.

There he/she is, Mr or Ms America
There he/she is, your ideal
The dreams of a million boys/girls
Who are more than pretty
May come true in Washington
Oh he/she may turn out to be
The king/queen of femininity
There he/she is, Mr/Ms America
There he/she is, your ideal
With so many beauties
He/she’ll take the town by storm
With his/her all-American face and form
And there he/she is
Walking on air he/she is
Fairest of the fair he/she is
Mr/Ms America

  • Well I saw a picture of Rush Limbaugh dressed as The Gladiator which I assume was a suggestion from his “communication consultant”.

    For the media it seems that fluff only flows one way–complimentary to Reps, derogatory to Dems.

  • and, for completeness’ sake, if comments about Ann Romney count in your critique of how media covers campaigns then Joe Scarborough’s speculation about Ms. Thompson’s, um, fitness routine should probably make the list as well as one of the lower points of media behavior so far in campaign 2008.

    maybe some j-school profs will take your list and preemptively embarrass their students with it as a teaching device. there is no hope until at least the next generation of so-called journalists.

  • I think this is part of Clarke Willard “Romney” Griswold’s campaign platform. He only uses mascara, lipstick, and eye-liner that were tested on Gitmo prisoners — that’s why he wants to “double” the American Gulag.

  • Um, what’s good for the goose…

    Romney’s expensive preening is a non-story because he’s never claimed to be a champion of the little people. He can pay a million bucks for a haircut and he hasn’t compromised any significant campaign platform plank. It’d be odd, but not news.

    Edwards, as champ of the poor seems a bit oblivious to his “base” when 400 bucks is a car payment, electric bill, or a couple months of groceries. Like the guy, hate the guy, it’s news. Completely unworthy of the volume of ink it’s gotten, but it is, um, WAS news. At this point, people might start asking “Is that ALL the dirt they have on Edwards?” Lord knows, I’m getting impatient with the obsession.

    To cite the Vittar case, it’s the hypocrisy, stupid! Clinton’s hummer wasn’t news for the same reason. He didn’t claim to be a champion of “family values”. Same with the haircuts. Jeez… case closed, yet???

  • You almost have it william, but the Edwards story is also a non-story. Unlike Fred Thompson, Edwards is not pretending to be something that he’s not. I don’t care how much he spends on haircuts, it says absolutely nothing at all about his empathy for Po Folk. There isn’t even any symbolic value there, Edwards wasn’t publicizing this. While the guy with the Rented Pickup truck was. You want to make a story about hypocrisy then Fred’s your man. Not Edwards, and not Romney either.

  • Sorry, it’s just not hypocritical to be rich, yet to care about the poor. There’s no comparison to the hyprocrisy involved in preaching about family values while paying hookers.

    For that matter, I don’t entirely agree with CB either. While I’m certainly tired of meaningless fluff, and could not give a damn how much a candidate pays for a haircut (or makeup) as long as it’s his or her money, there’s something quintessentially Romneyish about paying $300 for makeup and calling it “communications consulting.”

    Yeah right. And the money Vitter spent was on “community outreach.”

  • So Edwards can’t win unless he voluntarily impoversihes himself? Really? He is hypocritical merely by being rich? That’s the only conclusion I can see in williamjacobs post. If so, then the only people who can credibly help the poor are the poor – who have no clout. Nice result, if you are Dick Cheney. Edwards, whatever one may think of him as a potential president, should be lauded for calling attention to poverty despite the fact that it has no immediate impact on him. He should be lauded for using his celebrity and money to help others, rather than hording it for himself. To say it is hypocritical to have (and spend) money while calling attention to the plight of the less fortunate is to discourage anyone else with money from using it for a good cause – a poor policy result indeed. Hypocrisy would be claiming an interest in poverty and then getting caught on camera kicking a homeless guy or holding a closed-door rally to pass a severe local anti-panhandling law or, say, running for election as a “Compassionate Conservative” and then gutting social safety net programs. Edwards’ haircut, while stupid to pay for from a campaign fund (and therefore having to report it), is no more hypocrisy than the semi-non-sequitur strings of odd coincidences were “Ironic” in the banal Alanis Morissette song of the same name.

  • Conclusion:

    The threshold for what’s acceptable and what’s unacceptable just got defined as some amount between $300 and $400.

  • The media prefers producing vapid, half-witted stupidity over doing actual journalism? I never would have guessed.

    What we’re seeing is the slow murder of American Democracy. Jefferson himself warned us that an informed electorate is essential, and that’s being phased out of existence by our media.

    They have other priorities, and our politicians depend on them to get re-elected.

    Michael Moore, please do a movie about the media!!!

  • But Stacy Andrews, who made up Romney for Hidden Beauty, said he barely needs makeup.

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

    Isn’t that a lot like what the hooker said about Vitter and his diapers?

  • There are two competing concepts in this argument: the questions of whether two wrongs make a right and whether turnabout is fair play. The answer to the first is no, it’s a classic fallacy, but the second is a resounding YES.

    The apparent dilemma comes from confusing the players. For example if Mitt Romney went on TV and called John Edwards a “Breck Girl” or busted on his haircut then as far as I’m concerned it’s open season on Mitt. But as far as I know that hasn’t happened. So as long as he more or less behaves himself one really should try and restrict one’s self to making fun of a) his positions on issues (or lack thereof) and b) all the other people on TV who do go around saying silly shit like that. Ann Coulter comes to mind, that ghoulish hag.

  • Romney’s grooming expenses matter because of this:

    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.”

  • http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16809

    “The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year…

    That amount — which comes to about $31 a person in the audience — included Edwards’ travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.

    The earnings — though made before Edwards was a declared Democratic presidential candidate —

    You know, white people didn’t have to go to jail during the civil rights movement to prove they sympathized with minorities, but the most noble, the most admirable took the risk. Edwards commitment to poverty seems strongest when it serves to get him farther away from it. A little evidence of empathy, of sacrifice could help the credibility of the messenger is all. Would it kill him to find a decent haircut costing two figures? If he wants to tip the working slob 300 bucks so he keeps his budget consistent, I’d be okay with that.

    Y’know, the haircut ain’t a story. The defensiveness of Edwards apologists strikes me as a bigger deal. Perhaps we have a collection of well-heeled posters at CB. I tip my Hair Cuttery artist 40% by forking over 20 and I tend to wait two weeks longer than I really should because it hurts to part with 20 bucks.

    I resent 400 bucks getting shelled out by anyone, frankly. Puff up Mr. Edwards all you like, there is a VERY large chunk of humanity in my shoes that look askance at Mr. Edwards’ extravagance. If he’s orating mightily about the plight of the poor and donating generously personally (I can find no figures to say he’s exceptional or contemptible in this regard and Edwards has sealed his tax records for some reason), great, but I have to wonder if only $380 bucks is being used so casually. How do we justify such copious self-indulgent use of personal wealth because he talks a good game? Are his words so much less compelling if he’s not blown dry just so? What a fragile house of cards altruism must be.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?ex=1184817600&en=459847022727284b&ei=5070

    One fund he was involved with donated 300,000 in college scholarships. The charity took in at least 1.3 million. That suggests more than 75% went to something other than the poor. When I look up a charity on Charity Navigator, numbers like that have me running for the exits. Charity scams routinely hover around 10%. Edwards funds’ are marginally better than charities getting prosecuted for fraud.

    Do I wish to criticize wealthy people who want to help the poor?
    No. Am I wrong to at least WONDER about a man who speaks so well about a thing, yet executes so badly? The IRS does…

    Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.

    “I can’t say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong,” Mr. Owens said. “But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he’d fall over it.”

    The praise for Edwards bothers me far more than anything he might have done poorly or improperly. It belittles the significant contributions of those who are very good at helping the poor, e.g. Jimmy Carter.

  • Hard to follow that last post Bill. Trying to cram too much in, plus it’s unclear where the outside sources end and you begin.

    The story of the two non-profits is certainly far bigger than haircuts. It’s slightly disturbing. And yet, you’re not paraphrasing it very accurately either.

    There are apparently two Charities. The larger of them appear legit and it’s doing good things.

    The smaller one, the one you mention, is obviously a Campaign vehicle that may or may not be legal. But donations to it aren’t deductible. Everything about it seems to scream Political Vehicle. It doesn’t seem like us Regular Folks who pay $20 bucks for a haircut are getting snookered into a scam charity.

    I’m not sold on Edwards, for various reasons, including his relative inexperience. With this smaller non-profit he certainly doesn’t appear any better than any other candidate. But no worse either. And he’s the only one in either Party trying to make the Economic Injustices of this Country a major issue. So for that alone I’ll keep listening a while longer.

  • To Bill Jacobs

    Instead of posting what I wrote, I’ll just quote some from today’s Daily Howler

    Again, we’ll refer you to Foser’s work at Media Matters—work which has been so strong on these points. (For his current column, click here.) Strange, isn’t it? Today’s journalist is quick to spot contradictions when a fairly wealthy person expresses concern about the poor. But conflicts of interest aren’t robotically mentioned when wealthy Republicans make proposals which directly advance their own financial interests, and those of their wealthy supporters. When Candidate Bush proposed his tax cuts in 1999, for example, eager children didn’t clog their copy with speculations about his vile motives. Paragraph 5 did not reliably cluck about the way the gentleman’s upper-end tax-cutting plan cast doubt on the image he has cultivated as a new kind of compassionate conservative.

    Today, this pattern continues, as Foser has noted. Candidate Romney is much richer than Edwards (though you might not guess it from reading newspapers); he owns at least one house that is much more expensive than Edwards’. (We refer to that big shack on Lake Winnipesaukee. It’s worth “more than $10 million,” the AP has reported.) But no one rushes to mention these things when Romney talks about taxes or health care. Fatuous scribes don’t feel the need to inject their vastly limited musings into their journalistic copy. Somehow, they manage to discuss big Republican hopefuls without suggesting, in paragraph 5, that they’re really self-dealing kleptos. And that’s good! That rumination shouldn’t clog paragraph 5. Nor should Bacon’s bullsh*t this morning.

    Now Mr. Jacobs, can you answer two questions for me.

    1) How does praise for Edwards belittle contributions of those who are good for the poor(sidenote: how does Mr. Carter’s foreign policy record as president belittle his contributions to the poor?)?

    2) Why are you only complaining about Edwards?

  • Reg’lar Joe:
    Good point, I’ll see if I can’t indent actual material like CB does to make it more clear.
    Most of it was paraphrased hoping to save a little time reading, if desired. Just like CB does. (‘Tis why I love CBR, so.)
    The fund he FOUNDED was the ugly one. The one that boasted loudest as well, as if to suggest it was the more important one. “Look at what we’re doing for poor college students!” (at 25 on the dollar.) Not MY choice of emphasis, HIS.

    Rambuncle:
    “Compassionate conservatism:” was a term invented by our Chimp in Chief. It didn’t MEAN anything. We know what it means now and his actions have been wholly consistent because he’s the guy who said what he would do as president would be it.

    Romney has disavowed his own state’s health plan. That was his main claim to populism. If he’s not professing empathy for the poor, ownership of mansions and selling them is entirely consistent. Of course I expect hypocrisy in the ad campaign prior to the general if he gets elected, but then I EXPECT hypocrisy from any Republican. The refreshing surprises come from the occasional outlier like Arlen Specter or the bedridden version of John Ashcroft.
    That said, you’ve wrung it out of me. John Edwards is less hypocritical than Mitt Romney. I’m not sure busting out the party hats is called for just yet. It’s dangerous when we set the bar so low for our party’s candidates.

    1) Bill Gates and Mother Theresa both helped the poor. Who got more attention and praise relative to the sacrifice made? It’s insulting to the latter to put them in the same tier of service. To his credit, Gates doesn’t tout his own contributions nearly as much as the media does. Edwards is a lightweight, but wants credit for being an 800-pound gorilla. I haven’t seen any justification for the praise showered on him. If the praise died down, I’d not feel compelled to pooh-pooh the fawning I hear. (Carter’s foreign policy? You mean the one where 8 marines got killed in 4 years? The 30 year and counting truce between Egypt and Israel? His supervision of other nations’ democratic elections to promote freedom? I find them IRRELEVANT to his service to the poor despite their success.)

    2) Not sure. First impressions bred suspicion in 2004, campaigning for the poor while insisting he wasn’t (why were the poor in New Hampshire so early on his agenda?) afterwards, the haircut (which I blew off until my liberal peers said it was no biggie), then the hedge fund comment he made followed by the revelation that his hedge fund was engaged in predatory lending (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html),
    then needing to defend myself, I try to find out if Edwards DOES make a substantial impact in any way other than talk and find at LEAST 75 cents of every dollar in a fund he considers some of his finest work went towards overhead and suspiciously convenient expense accounts that doubled as campaign stops. Why Edwards? Because of all the things in the frig I’m considering having for lunch, so far, he smells the worst. (Not counting the Republicans, of course.)

    It doesn’t mean he IS the worst. I just don’t respond well to others’ effusive praise on such flimsy evidence on the one issue he seems to care most about. As much praise as he’s received for his populism, he’s made few headlines on anything else. If you plan to be a one-trick pony, you need to be really good at that trick. He just isn’t. I don’t MIND that he’s not good at the one trick, I’m just impatient with people thunderously applauding the pony when the dancing bear and jumping dolphin acts looking for their vote are much better shows, if they’d only turn their heads for a moment.

    Does this discourage rich people from getting into helping the poor, I hope not. Getting into helping the poor and expecting fame and fortune to follow and fishing for compliments may not be the best plan, though. It tarnishes the purity of the act. There’s no Hall of Fame for the meek.

    Perhaps that’s a problem, though, and my expectation that philanthropists should be humble about their unselfishness should change. It hasn’t yet,. but perhaps I’ll work on it. Just because humility and generosity have been tied together, must they? It rubs me the wrong way, but maybe if we showered glory on generous people we’d get more of them.
    When people like me figure the reward for generosity should be expectation of greater self-imposed hardship, that may leave out some of those most able to be kind. Will this increase in the willing decrease the number of saintly people who DO take tremendous self-sacrifice on themselves? Would that be a bad thing on balance? A subject for a cocktail party, I’d wager. Not a political blog.

  • Comments are closed.