Edwards Campaign Picks Up The Tab for Pricey Haircuts

If he spends campaign funds like this, I can only imagine how he'll spend our tax dollars.

 

Isn't his hair one of his mane aspects.

Probably one of the most cost effective decisions he can make during his campaign run.



P.S. Pun was intended.

 

Not just a haircut (the stylist comes to you, does your makeup for a television event, etc.). This is no big deal and I garauntee you most other candidates are quite similar. This all got started when television first came to be and the Nixon/Kenenedy debates were televised. Kennedy wore makeup and Nixon did not. Nixon looked like doodie and Kennedy came off as far moe presidential. So what's the big deal?

I guess it is okay to rib the guy for being a bit of a pretty boy, but mark my words this is and will be taken way out of context.

 

I agree with you, Harvey. Where's the info on the other candidates? He's just an easy target.

 

My thoughts exactly:-D

 

If a republican did this ALL of you liberal leftist holier than thou's would be hooting and hollering!! Typical Dems. Justifying a 400.00 haircut.

 

No, why would we worry on how anyone spends their money if it is legal?

 

Thanks Wayne. Choosing your battles more wisely?

 

No, just being honest.

 

See first thing is the money was spent out of campaign funds not his personal funds. Should we be electing leaders on how they look? $400 is a lot of money to the average worker for a haircut. To me this is a non event, but should cause us to think about what we value when choosing our politicians.

 

And I thought DH's haircut was high at $16! :neutral:

 

My DH's haircut is cheap but we don't want to talk about what we pay for our's:lol:

 

It is campaign funds and on a legitimate campaign function, which is legal. We do elect our leaders on their appearance of leadership, which includes the personal appearance. Should we be monitoring how much each haircut costs each candidate or on what every penny may be spent if it is a legal expense? I think there are more important issues but if someone wants to concentrate on the trivial aspects it is their business. The amount of money spent on everything in a campaign is a lot of money for the average worker, which is not really the best comparison since we do not want the average person leading us. We want the leadership to be the "cream of the crop" so to speak, which means they may live a more expensive lifestyle than the average person.

 

According to Barbara Walters, Laura got a $700 haircut for the inauguration.

 

That's just insane!

Another reason I need to be in charge of the universe! :mrgreen:

 

What Eva!! Barbara Walters has no credibility left after putting that hippo back on TV.

 

:shock:

but :lol:

 

See it is all up to opinions. I want an average person involved in office. They understand the plight. Maybe we would get something done. Imagine if harley was in office. Heads would roll...

 

No...we generally tend to not give a hoot about trivial stuff like this and would prefer to concentrate on issues that actually affect our nation. It is campaign money (i.e., money willingly given to his campaign by folks who trust him to use it the best way he knows how to win the election), not tax dollars.

I guess we could try to compare this to the $418,000,000,000 (that's 418 billion and counting) in tax dollars spent on the Iraq war so far. I am pretty sure John's haircut turned out a lot better and proves to be a bargain by comparison.

Note to trolls: I support the troops, but disagree with the war. Do not hi-jack thread. Must...resist.

I don't have to justify it, the article does that for me. The reporter and the stylist both state that other services related to a television/public appearance were rendered. Weren't you the one who accused me of not reading all of the material in another thread? Read the article, you boob.