The media conspiracy to make Katherine Harris look bad

August 4, 2005

I realize Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) is in a tough spot. Since announcing that she’s giving up her House seat to run for the Senate, she’s been encouraged by top GOP officials to drop out of the race, polls have shown her trailing Sen. Bill Nelson (D), and fundraising isn’t going nearly as well as she expected.

But if Harris is looking to establish broader credibility and boost her stature statewide, this isn’t the way to do it.

Congresswoman Katherine Harris, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat next year, has again accused some newspapers of doctoring photos to distort her makeup as a way to poke fun at her.

In an interview on a conservative radio talk show Monday, Harris said some newspapers — she didn’t say which — altered photos during the 2000 presidential election recount when she was Florida secretary of state. […]

Harris, a Republican, was asked Monday by nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity whether that image bothered her.

“I’m actually very sensitive about those things, and it’s personally painful,” she said. “But they’re outrageously false. … Whenever they made fun of my makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph.”

She has made similar allegations in newspaper articles since the recount and in January told The Associated Press, “The jokes about my appearance — it’s the computer-enhanced photos.”

In other words, Harris sees a media conspiracy in which news outlets plotted to embarrass her. Which news outlets? She wouldn’t say. Proof to substantiate her claims? She wouldn’t say.

This is obviously an unwise move for a Senate candidate that’s struggling anyway — it’s unlikely voters will be persuaded to respect Harris’ bold stand against non-existent colorizing — but it’s also foolish to pick a fight with the media like this. Reporters and editors, especially when they haven’t done anything, don’t usually appreciate being accused of violating professional ethics without proof. Candidates don’t always have to endear themselves to journalists, but accusing outlets of conspiracy like this is bound to be counterproductive.

Considering it’s Harris, I’m delighted.

This is precisely why all women need to stay out of politics and get their asses back into the kitchen and bake their men some pot pies.

(/snark)

Seriously, isn’t Harris acting out the reasons the GOP is so anti-woman? Heaven forbid how the GOP rubes down in FL would have reacted if she broke a nail!

  • Fascinating.

    So her defense seems to be, I couldn’t possibly look as ridiculous as these (probably undoctored) pictures show me as looking. The mere fact of these pictures looking so ridiculous implies intent to deceive.

    Good luck with that.

  • Hang tough, Rep. Harris.

    As for myself, I’m starting to suspect that all the mirror and clothing manufacturers are conspiring to make me think I’m fat.

  • Cheri Pierson Yecke wrote an editorial for the Minneapolis Star Tribune which complained that the media was out to demonize “strong conservative women” like Katherine Harris, Linda Tripp, and Condi Rice. The method of demonization was to attack their looks.

    Cheri Pierson Yecke is a fellow at the Center of the American Experiment and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House. The Center of the American Experiment describes itself as “Minnesota’s Conservative Think Tank”. Their board of directors includes Ken Starr and Linda Chavez.

    I keep thinking “And Hillary Clinton was never attacked for her looks? Remember the headband?”

    Seems like evidence there is yet another victimization theme running through the Repug community. See the article at:
    http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5527271.html

  • In reference to the editorial by Yecke: we can’t help it if Republican women are ugly.

    http://www.hoffmania.com/ (scroll down to the comparison pics of Hackett and Schmidt)

    Yikes. This is the kind of thing Democratic parents could use to scare their children into eating their vegetables or going to bed on time.

  • Seems to me that one way to assure that one will continue to receive irritating or embarrassing stimuli is to draw a big, public bull’s-ey around it! What a freakin’ whiner!! But like Mr. C.B., I’m delighted to have Harris keep doing it.

    Is there NOTHING that the Rethugs won’t claim to be victimized about? Good grief….

    P.S. Please don’t hold this against me, but unlike Jeff R I don’t find Harris to be “ugly;” “garish” or overly made up, maybe, but not ugly (I know, I know, I just painted a bull’s-eye on myself with that statement 🙂 ). Okay, maybe without the make-up she is ugly,; who knows? But we only need to continue to focus on her actions and ideology to hate her as a candidate. To simply focus on her physical appearance IS demeaning, unless as here she chooses to make it a political issue.

  • Hey, Hillary wasn’t the only one, they teed off on Chelsea repeatedly, in the nastiest way possible. Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.

    • Comments are closed.