OK, after the whole "John Edwards paid a lot of money for a haircut" controversy, I wonder if we're going to be hearing a whole lot from those same people about this story about Mitt Romney using $300 of campaign cash for make-up:
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.
What are the chances that this will pick up mainstream media attention? Does it work in their narrative of Mitt, like the haircut worked for them in trying to portray Edwards as gay?
I mean, if the Republican pundits aren't going to have a field day on this one:
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."
Then they aren't even believably homophobic anymore.
(h/t Frank)
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
5 Comments
« Easy way to rile up Kenn Gividen: Take him off your blogroll | Home | AOL sucks »
There will not be much notice given to this because no one would care. Mitt Romney is a Wall Street multi-millionaire (and Republican) who isn't advocating national reform on economic and health issues directed at the working poor. Edwards is all about the poor (me) or so he says. The attacks on him, which come heavily from his democratic rivals (read Hillary), are about the inconsistencies which he has so foolishly provided. In my opinion it isn't about suggesting he is gay. It's about suggesting his advocacy for the poor is false.
Tony | July 17, 2007 3:10 PM
Reply to this comment
Everyone knows that Metrosexual Mitt is a doesn't give a whit about the poor. He's a Republican for God's sake. So, his spending $300 on makeup etc won't really matter.
Michael Crawford | July 17, 2007 3:46 PM
Reply to this comment
Any man with that much eternal tan is either a Florida retiree or a metrosexual. But, you know, I always think to myself, "That idiot doesn't even know to get out of the sun let alone out of Iraq." LOL
Bil Browning | July 17, 2007 8:44 PM
Reply to this comment
$150 to put on makeup for TV doesn’t seem as bad as $400 haircuts it probably costs $100 just to get somebody to show up. Besides Rod Blagojevich’s $600 makeup makes $150 seem like a real deal.
bjalder26 | July 17, 2007 11:02 PM
Reply to this comment
As long as it wasn't for lipstick. Cuz then I'd be jealous.
Serena | July 18, 2007 12:44 AM
Reply to this comment