I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Mitt Romney, Pretty Boy Extraordinaire!

What is happening to men in this country? I mean, sheesh.

You see so many worrying about hair gel and exfoliators and moisturizing and waxing... isn't that supposed to be our department? Our meaning women? I mean, I get keeping yourself clean and looking nice, but come on. It's not unusual to find men who take longer to get ready than I do, and that's an automatic strike against you. God help you if I were to find out you spent more money than I do on "health and beauty" supplies.

Enter Mitt Romney.

Everyone knows how much of a pretty boy he is anyways -- Ben Affleck hypocritically called him a Ken doll -- but good Lord. I think he's trying to catch up to John Edwards:

What kinds of things do you think of when you hear "communications consulting"?

Speechwriting? Message strategy?

Well, "communications consulting" is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

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.

"We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time," said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as "communications consulting" because it was paid from the communications division's budget.

Politicians often wear makeup for photo and video shoots. Federal campaigns, on at least 26 different occasions since 2002, reported paying for haircuts and other primping -- services totaling $7,443, according to an analysis by The Politico of Federal Election Commission data. And Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards refunded $800 his campaign shelled out for two haircuts after he was criticized for them.

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."


All right. I get if you're going to be on national television, you need to look good and wear a little makeup. But $300? $300?! For a little drop of foundation and some powder?

I think I spend 1/6 of that on my total beauty "budget", if you can even call it that. I never throw shampoo and conditioner bottles away, so I practically have the shampoo aisle from Walgreens in the closet in my bathroom, albeit with assorted half-empty bottles. You can get foundation and powder for $5 a pop, and I promise you it is just as good as the high-end stuff. It's not that I wouldn't ever use the high-end stuff, but I buy it sparingly and use it sparingly (as in, only for special occasions) so it lasts a while. I don't bust out the Sephora products to go to Winn-Dixie. There are so much more important things I can be spending my money on than make-up!

Now, don't get me wrong, I doubt most women are as stingy as I am when it comes to make-up and hair care and that kind of thing. But I doubt most women spend anywhere near $300 on make-up in an entire year, much less in one sitting. And to hear a man is spending that much money for a bit of foundation and some powder? Couldn't his wife have just done it for him? I mean, honestly.

God help him if he ever has to go to the Middle East as President. His make-up might get smudged!

Seriously, folks. Do you want someone in office so concerned about make-up that they spend $300 in a single sitting?

Maybe John Edwards and Mitt Romney could run on a ticket together. The Breck Girl and the Ken Doll... a victory for pretty boys everywhere!

Previous:
Ben Affleck, Meet the Kettle

6 comments:

gredd said...

$300 seems like a lot for me, but to Mitt or any other person who's going to run for office, it's pocket change.

I have no issues with them dropping cash on something like this. He's a guy so I don't think he's going to know what he's doing with makeup. He's not going to ask his wife because she's probably doesn't have any experience in this situation (meaning, what needs to be done when he's going to be in front of the camera. Don't want him to be orange like Algore!). Finally, someone who does do it professionally is going to be expensive. It sucks but that's the way it is.

Edwards is a different ball of wax. Mitt isn't out there spouting crap about "Two Americas." So him spending money isn't hypocritical. Edwards just plain slaps you in the face with 'how can he say one thing and do another?!' with his actions. I swear he should do stand up. He'd be a hit!

Last but not least, Cassy, what ever you're doing for make up, it's beautiful, don't change a thing.

Sean said...

Well, in defense of the rest of the men in the country, I can pretty much guarantee you that 75-80% of the men on the street have absolutely no idea what an exfoliator is or what it's used for...

Joe said...

If you have to hire a makeup artist, $300 is reasonable (when I do contract work in both the entertainment and computer industries, my minimum charge is half a day.) I would assume, though, that a candidate for a significant office would have someone on staff who could do the basics.

Cas said...

Well, first of all Gredd, I wouldn't care if Mitt dropped his own cash on it either, although I'd still think he was a pretty boy Ken doll. However, he didn't drop his own cash. He charged it to his campaign.

And like Joe says, when you're going to be on TV all the time, I get you're going to need to have make-up on, so shouldn't he have his own person to add a drop of foundation and a touch of powder?

I mean, the make-up artist herself said that's all Mitt needed (he is pretty, after all). So why $300 for that? That's why I mentioned his wife doing it for him. I'm sure she could put a drop of foundation and some powder on him for FREE! :)

Anonymous said...

It is widely believed that Richard Nixon lost to John Kennedy largely because he didn't "look good" on TV. He didn't want to use makeup.

In this day and age when "image" is so important, you do what it takes so that first impression is good.

gredd said...

Sorry, I should have used more specific language. I meant dropping cash that came from campaign funds. I guess I'm ok with campaign funds going towards something like that. It's a tiny part of the budget I'm guessing. I figure my donations are going to be used to help him/her get elected via whatever method is necessary: posters, buttons, pamphlets, commercials, etc. So be it if it's used for the make-up s/he uses in said commercials.

And you know this is only going to get worse. With Hi-Def TV's, expect the ugly to come out in the next few elections, literally (botox, nip here, tuck there). Pretty sure I won't support these kinds of fund uses.

Joe does have a point, maybe someone on the staff should know how to do it proper. Or perhaps because this is the Big Race, they're not chancing it and going for the big guns? I'd still argue that the Mrs. Romney probably doesn't know how. If it is going to cost that much each time, perhaps Mrs. should learn it. They sound like they have a great relationship, it'd give them more bonding time on top of it! :)

May I ask, Cassy, would you know what make-up to wear when going on TV? Not meaning to call you out or anything, just trying to gauge if the average gal knows the secrets. Maybe another female reader could comment? I'm actually curious about that.

Some people want a person who 'looks' like a President. I'd hope that what the candidate stood for would crush such a superficial thing but I can't make that call for everyone. If I were to vote that way, I'd vote Christopher Walken every time! He's just a cool lookin dude! :)