How many times do you have to see this movie before you get bored by it? Or even catch on to what's happening?
Remember Bill Clinton's supposed $200 haircut? That was later completely disproved, but the late night comedians got a hold it and it was way too late. The damage was done already. How many people heard those jokes and heard conservative radio and Fox News Channel talking about it? Millions upon millions. How many heard that it was later shown to be untrue? Maybe eight people, maybe.
Then it was John Kerry's $75 haircut. Then that got bumped up to a $1,000 haircut. And one conservative blogger estimated that it even cost $15,000. Other than the fact that this is absurd, why do you think we never hear about Republican candidates' haircuts? You don't think we could find one Republican getting a $75 haircut? How about Mitt Romney? It looks like it would cost $75 just for the gel he puts in his hair everyday.
You know what? Mitt Romney is rich. So is John Edwards. So is almost every candidate running. And they're running for president. It's okay for them to get haircuts that are more expensive than ours.
Well, I'm not so sure Dennis Kucinich is very rich, but you see my point. Man, if they catch Kucinich with a haircut over $20, you know I'm right about the right-wing attack machine.
So, why do they do it? Why do the Republicans conjure up a haircut story every election cycle?
Two obvious reasons. Paint the Democrat as a limousine liberal out of touch with the common man. The Democrats do this back to the Republican candidates when they ask them about the price of groceries. A variant of this has been done to George H. W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani. By the way, technically it's the press doing both, but in reality, those stories either get blown out of proportion or get planted.
The Democrats take the milk and cookies stories and talk about them constantly until everyone is buzzing about how the Republicans don't know the plight of the average Joe. On the conservative side, it's just a flat out plant. They almost always start on Drudge. That's your first clue that it's a plant. And then they get picked up by a friendly paper (either Rupert Murdoch's New York Post or Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) or, of course, Fox News Channel.
The second reason they do it is because they want to make the Democratic candidates seem effeminate, or even gay.
In the Kerry haircut story, Craig Kilborn filled in the blanks, in case you weren't getting the innuendo:
"A lot of people are wondering if John Kerry supports gay marriages. Here's a hint ... he gets $1,000 haircuts."
Craig Kilborn is a comedian and certainly wasn't in on this right-wing hatchet job. But that's what's great about this particular kind of smear. You throw it out there and the jokes right themselves.
Perfect case in point is what they did to John Edwards this week. First, they said he gets $400 haircuts. That part of the story appears to be true (if I had his money, I might get $400 haircuts, too; I doubt it, but I might). But get a load of this part of the AP story:
"FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as 'a unique boutique for the mind, body and face' that caters mostly to women."
That's as big a hit job as you can do on a guy. The title of the article even mentions the word "pretty" and so does the first sentence of the piece. This is the official way of calling John Edwards the same word Ann Coulter used. They are not using the f-word, but they're all but saying it.
Now, when you read all the way down toward the end of the article, you find out, that the earlier description is completely misleading:
"Pink Sapphire co-owner Ariana Franggos said the two payments last month_ $150 on March 7 and $75 on March 20 - were for doing Edwards' makeup for television appearances. She handles makeup for local television personalities and was referred to Edwards through that connection.
'This poor guy. I'm telling you, I promise he's not in here getting facials and cucumber peels on his eyes or anything,' she said."
In other words, he got makeup for a TV appearance -- as every single person going on TV does, including all of the other candidates. So, why even mention the Pink Sapphire and talk about how it mainly caters to women? What possible relevance or purpose could that have if they were just doing television makeup for him?Well, the purpose is clear. Pull an Ann Coulter on him, without actually saying the word. Accuse him of being gay, or at the very least effeminate, without outright saying so. This kind of politics is despicable when one side does it to another. But it's even worse when journalists play along. It's the same trick every time, the press needs to wake up and stop being an accessory to a smear job.
The Young Turks
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. YOU ARE A VERY SAD MAN. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE WITH A $400 HAIRCUT. THIS SHOWS THE HYPOCRITICAL SIDE OF EDWARDS. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE SMEAR JOBS THE LEFT DOES ON THE REPUBLICANS. DON'T SEE YOU DEFENDING THEM. BELEIVE ME, THE RIGHT GETS SMEARED ALOT MORE THAN THE LEFT. AND MOST OF IT IS UNTRUE UNLIKE JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUT...IT IS A FACT!!! WHAT IDIOT WOULD PAY $400 DOLLARS FOR HAIR THAT IS BARELY THERE...I COULD CUT THE LITTLE BIT OF HAIR THAT HE HAS FOR FREE. JUST SHOWS YOU THE LIBERAL FRAUD MACHINE.
jk at 4:33PM on Apr 23rd 2007
2. The first thing I thought of reading this right on point blog is that the saddest thing about it is that referring to someone as gay is still a relevant insult to many people in America. When Mo Rocca asked "What Does God Really Think Of Gays" I dived in for gay rights, and could not believe the things I confronted. I expected the selective Bible quotation, and when I responded 10 times back asking if the commenters also supported things in the Bible such as slavery, killing misbehaving children, going to hell if you play with a pig skin football or wear cloth made of two fabrics, those people would slip away. The psychopath who wants worldwide genocide is still around.
The second saddest thing is that the Republicans have made such a mess of our national position in six years that, once again, they have to avoid the issues and focus on something totally irrelevant. In comment to Dinesh D'Souza's blog on Edwards being a limousine liberal, I mentioned that the only difference between rich Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats are the only ones of the two willing and anxious to share the bounty.
Since the true moral values people are, of course, Democrat, we might as well get used to it. "Gay" sets off your average neo-con like throwing a match in a gas tanker - and all we will hear about for the next six months are detailed descriptions of crushing babies heads in partial birth abortions and the erosion of society because someone loves in a different way than the majority.
Wouldn't it be nice if Republican voters would focus on the real issues of this country instead of inserting the Bible Belt into everything?
Phil at 2:49AM on Apr 23rd 2007
3. John Edwards taking more heat for being a "metrosexual" on http://www.solidpolitics.com
Bill at 8:30AM on Apr 23rd 2007
4. Cenk,
This post is off base for a two reasons. First you portray this as a Republican hit job but you give no evidence that republicans are behind this other than the story appeared on Drudge. In the current election cycle Edwards is running against Obama and Clinton. They would have more to gain from a hit on Edwards then any Republicans. In fact, I think many republicans would prefer to see Edwards win the nomination rather than Clinton or Obama.
Secondly, you concede that the story is true (albeit in the 8th paragraph.) Apparently you think this is a non-story that is somehow hyped by Republicans to become a major story. You may not have noticed but the MSM is not exactly friendly to Republicans. They would not take part in a Republican hit job unless the story had appeal. And this story does have appeal. The reason this is an appealing story is because Edwards continually talks about the “two Americas” while he lives in a mansion and gets $400 haircuts. There is a certain hypocrisy there that cannot be ignored.
Greg at 11:30AM on Apr 23rd 2007
5. You guys make a good point. Not only does the press, particularly AP, constantly smear Democrats, remember how they always took Bush's side in that National Guard thing? And how they sided with those Duke defendants from the very beginning? Disgraceful. And now they're claiming that Edwards has $400 haircuts when it turns out that he actually does.
Outrageous.
And for this female reporter to refer to Edwards as "pretty" when we all know that only Andrew Sullivan is allowed to (continually) do this, is beyond the pale.
melk at 1:33PM on Apr 23rd 2007
6. There is some chance that Andrew Sullivan might have a wee bit of a crush on our man Johnny E.
jarett at 3:02PM on Apr 23rd 2007
7. JK, John Edwards earned his own money starting from scratch. He went through the social darwinism of law (survival of the fittest socially in the environment in which you live, or more simply, whether you get told to go home or invited in to study then work and make money as a lawyer), took the enormous amount of talent, knowledge and skill required to win in court, and made himself rich in the process of providing for others whose lives had been harmed (sometimes devastatingly) by the medical profession. Now, he wants to make a better and fairer society and make the gap between the haves and have nots less gapingly wide, and is willing to pay more out of his own pocket in taxes to do that. As far as I'm concerned, he can pay $2000 for a haircut if he wants, and still be on the right track.
Phil at 5:12PM on Apr 23rd 2007
8. Your post is off in two ways:
1) Spending $400 on a haircut isn't a problem. Campaigning on a "two-americas" strategy and getting a $400 haircut is. It makes him a hypocrite.
2) I have yet to read an article/post, except yours, that made this into a gay issue.
Todd at 7:06PM on Apr 23rd 2007
9. The thing that proves this post is dead-on: The number of Republican trolls swarming to attack it with nonsense and non sequiturs.
Phoenix Woman at 10:12PM on Apr 23rd 2007
10. The thing that made this a story in the first place is the fact that he used campaign funds to pay for these haircuts.
Then the media put the spotlight on it turned it into a circus because it revealed that Edwards is a thieving clown.
Now you leftists act like you are the victims of some conspiracy. Too funny.
Learn the facts, man. Learn the facts.
And, yes, I know he has "promised" to pay the money back; that doesn't change anything, he still misappropriated the funds.
JamesonLewis3rd at 10:26PM on Apr 23rd 2007
11. You know what? Karl Rove exposed himself to me while I was in Washington recently. No, I really saw his weenie and no one (not even the police) believed me. So, I've been scarred for life (you would be too if you'd seen how small it was) and now I can't ever marry a white man. It's awful and no one believed me but I did see it . . . it was when he was walking out of the White House into his limo to jet his way (at the cost of the taxpayers) to some luncheon (or was that a dinner?) you know, where he was trying to dance like a brother. He looked really funny cause not only does he or anyone else trying to do this on the dance floor have no rhythm . . . it was a national embarrasement. What was he trying to prove? Or had he had too much too drink or pilled up (er, sorry that's the other fat pig - Rush). Must have been the booze. Has anyone ever checked the drinking habits of the Bush Crew? I think you'd find it up there . . . exposure and trying to dance... not, good things for the Repubs.
Lillith at 3:35PM on Apr 25th 2007
12. #4 "remember how they always took Bush's side in that National Guard thing? And how they sided with those Duke defendants from the very beginning?"
Uh, here on planet Earth the MSM used faked docs to try to FRAME President Bush on the Nat. Guard thing and the MSM also convicted the Duke lacrosse players before the first piece of evidence was out. I guess if you only read lefty blogs you have no idea of what is going on in the world.
To mr. cenk: this entire story is informative about Edwards' character: he doesn't pay attention to how much stuff costs on the campaign trail, when he gets busted he blames his staff and insinuates that the barber (who is a supporter and feels very friendly toward Edwards and is pained this all came about) gouged him. While lower-middle class people, Edwards main audience, are ponying up $100 contributions, very dear to a working man, and then seeing it spent on haircuts, that says something about Edwards the man. You may not like what it says, but the reporting is right to point it up.
I think the public weighs all the reporting, there's plenty out there, and in '04 you can't tell me with a straight face it wasn't 70-30 AGAINST George W. Bush, and yet the public still elected him. I find it hard to believe they'll elect Edwards. The man is a prig, he's dishonest, he has no loyalty toward staff or supporters, and he seems to suffer from the same feelings of entitlement that sunk Kerry- like as a rich person he's owed privilege and luxury.
Not on the working man's dime you ain't, pretty boy.
darcy at 1:32AM on Jul 5th 2007