Romney spends 300$ on makeup

[Gem]

Maybe thats where you and I are clashing. I know and fully accept that candidates have to do things on the political trail that they would not normally do in everyday life: worry about their hair cut, wear makeup, kiss strange, crying babies, etc.

I also accept that most Americans are so ridiculously apathetic to the whole thing that a candidate must adopt a persona in order to deal with the short-attention span citizenry. Bush was the tough-talkin' American cowboy to Kerry's suave European minded diplomat. Hillary is the woman. Obama is the good-looking young idealist (channeling JFK). Giuliani is "America's Mayor." etc.

While I find this somewhat pathetic...I understand it is a necessity when dealing with the majority of Americans who have no clue who Mitt Romney, Scooter Libby, Nancy Pelosi, etc. ARE.

So if I have to accept that you are going to play your little role - "John Edwards - everyman, family man, son of a poor mill worker." (I'll even ignore the fact that his father was actually a mill foreman/manager...not exactly what Edwards portrays)....then Johnny has to actually play the part...no thousand dollar meals delivered to him and his wife in their hotel from an expensive club after posing for a meal at Wendys (As happened on the campaign trail during the last election) no $400 haircuts from stylists flown in on private jets.

And if he isn't willing to play along...thats fine...if he wants to play "everyman" when it is convenient and then duck behind the corner for an expensive haircut or jet down to his palace-like home/compound for the weekend thats his right...But then I get to point it out and poke a little fun. It doesn't mean I'm not going to listen to his message...it just means that I'm going to listen with a grain of salt because I know he playing the games, just like everyone else.

I think thats fair...don't you?

 

[Larkinn]

Fair enough. All of them deserve to be made fun of...the process is rather ridiculous. Well...sort of fair enough. I guess I find it a bit sad that fighting against poverty gets one ridiculed these days if they are not themselves poor. If you want to lambast how Edwards pretends to be an everyman and then spends massive amounts of money running a campaign...alright. But the rich can fight, and should fight, against poverty...and not just with their own money.

I don't think he deserves any more of a "grain of salt" than anyone else though. They all have to do the same bullshit and jump through the same hoops in this ridiculous political process, its just that some of their views conform more with the process so they seem less hypocritical. But really...I think I would prefer someone whose actions in the ridiculous farce we call running for president, makes them a hypocrite as opposed to someone whose ideology is completely consistent with the asinine things they must do to run.

 

[dmp]

Incorrect.



I take it you didn't go back and read what he said.

Alright then I will spell it out for you. He said that this, like Edwards, was a non-story. Not that this should be covered because Edwards was covered, but that NEITHER should have been covered.



You are attacking HIM, not what he is saying.

Well - I'm glad you think so. (shrug).

 

[Gem]

Larkinn Wrote:

Fair enough. All of them deserve to be made fun of...the process is rather ridiculous. Well...sort of fair enough. I guess I find it a bit sad that fighting against poverty gets one ridiculed these days if they are not themselves poor.

Aw, we were SO close...but then you wrote that last sentence, which isn't what I'm saying at ALL! There is nothing wrong with being rich and fighting against poverty...and I've never said there was.

There IS, however, something comical about a rich man claiming to be an average everyday joe asking people to cut back, pay more of their money in taxes, not shop at wal-mart, and do other things that would hurt them financially, while he spends outrageous sums of money on everyday things.

The issue at hand is not a wealthy man trying to stop poverty. Please understand that. Its a man who is putting forth a public face that appears to be quite different from his private one. I applaud Edwards for trying to combat poverty...and there would be less cause to tease him, if his message was that he was the candidate who believed we can all do our part, no matter how large or small....rather than highlighting how humble and down-to-earth he is...and how it is exactly because he is so humble that leads him to want to end poverty...

If you want to lambast how Edwards pretends to be an everyman and then spends massive amounts of money running a campaign...alright. But the rich can fight, and should fight, against poverty...and not just with their own money.

I mean this in no rude way...but, DUH! Of course the rich should use their good fortune to help others. I have never implied otherwise.

But the wealthy should not go to the poor and say, "Gee, I'm just like you..." either...its condescending and dishonest.

I don't think he deserves any more of a "grain of salt" than anyone else though.

I never implied that he did.

They all have to do the same bullshit and jump through the same hoops in this ridiculous political process, its just that some of their views conform more with the process so they seem less hypocritical. But really...I think I would prefer someone whose actions in the ridiculous farce we call running for president, makes them a hypocrite as opposed to someone whose ideology is completely consistent with the asinine things they must do to run.

I agree completely. Hence why I said I will give equal consideration to Edwards as I do to all other candidates.

Please make sure that you aren't making more of my comments than I am. I do not consider Edwards' haircuts to be a major campaign issue - in fact, I do not believe anyone seriously does. I view it as simply an amusing bit of information - Edwards is someone who has chosen to play a down-to-earth, everyman although he is not living that way.

If you wanted to, you could read a lot into that, if you wanted to, you could brush it aside as one more piece of campaign tripe.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn Wrote:

Aw, we were SO close...but then you wrote that last sentence, which isn't what I'm saying at ALL! There is nothing wrong with being rich and fighting against poverty...and I've never said there was.

Haha...I know I had to ruin Christmas ;(. I wasn't necessarily (actually I wasn't at all) saying that you were doing that. It was more a comment on what happened to him when the MSM grabbed ahold of the payments to his hairdresser.

There IS, however, something comical about a rich man claiming to be an average everyday joe asking people to cut back, pay more of their money in taxes, not shop at wal-mart, and do other things that would hurt them financially, while he spends outrageous sums of money on everyday things.

I agree...but to be honest I guess I am willing to overlook it because I think his views on poverty are suberb.

The issue at hand is not a wealthy man trying to stop poverty. Please understand that. Its a man who is putting forth a public face that appears to be quite different from his private one. I applaud Edwards for trying to combat poverty...and there would be less cause to tease him, if his message was that he was the candidate who believed we can all do our part, no matter how large or small....rather than highlighting how humble and down-to-earth he is...and how it is exactly because he is so humble that leads him to want to end poverty...

True.

I mean this in no rude way...but, DUH! Of course the rich should use their good fortune to help others. I have never implied otherwise.

No, I actually rather like your response of "duh" actually.

But the wealthy should not go to the poor and say, "Gee, I'm just like you..." either...its condescending and dishonest.

But its hard not too in a political campaign I think. People say "well he is rich, he can't lecture us about saving the poor if he has money"...so he needs to provide some reason why he cares about the poor (which is a bit shocking really).

I never implied that he did.

Please make sure that you aren't making more of my comments than I am. I do not consider Edwards' haircuts to be a major campaign issue - in fact, I do not believe anyone seriously does. I view it as simply an amusing bit of information - Edwards is someone who has chosen to play a down-to-earth, everyman although he is not living that way.

Not all of my comments were in direct response to what you said, or a criticism of what you said. We agree, for the most part, on this issue.