Media heaped praise on Huckabee's "sexual dig" at Edwards
SUMMARY: Media figures and outlets heaped praise on Mike Huckabee's comment, during the May 15 Republican presidential debate, that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop," a reference to reports that former Sen. John Edwards spent $800 of campaign money (which Edwards said was reimbursed) on two haircuts. ABC News' The Note, as well as The Politico's Mike Allen called the line an "instant classic," while The Politico's Jonathan Martin predicted that it "will dominate the news coverage in the days ahead."
At one point during the May 15 Republican presidential debate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee quipped: "We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop," a reference to reports that Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) spent $800 of campaign money on two haircuts. (Edwards later said the expenditure from campaign funds had been a "mistake.") In his May 16 column, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon wrote of Huckabee's comment: "The audience loved it, but note that Huckabee said 'beauty shop' even though Edwards did not get his $400 haircuts at a beauty shop. (The barber came to him.) The use of 'beauty shop' therefore seemed to be a sexual dig, a somewhat more sly form of [right-wing pundit] Ann Coulter's calling Edwards a 'faggot' recently." Other media figures and outlets, however, heaped praise on Huckabee, referring to the line as an "instant classic," and predicting that it "will dominate the news coverage in the days ahead."
Simon's colleagues at The Politico were particularly effusive in their praise of Huckabee. On the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning, Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei praised Huckabee's "great timing," adding that the dig at Edwards is "great for that red meat audience. I mean, they love making fun of ... sort of the masculinity of Democrats, and they love to take pokes at people -- Democrats who spend a lot of money. You know, they're elites, and ... that's the message they're trying to pound home." When co-host John Roberts said of Huckabee's comment, "Well, if that's a sign of how these debates are going to go in the future, you know, I say more, more, more, because it was pretty interesting," VandeHei responded: "Absolutely."
In his May 16 article, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin credited Huckabee for "the best one-liner of the night" and wrote: "It will be that moment -- along with the McCain shot at Romney and Giuliani's invoking 9/11 -- that will dominate the news coverage in the days ahead and set the tone for the next debate just three weeks from now in New Hampshire." In the May 16 edition of his "Political Playbook," Politico chief political writer Mike Allen described Huckabee's comment as "raw comedy" and called it an "instant classic."
The May 16 edition of ABC News' political newsletter "The Note" also labeled Huckabee's comment an "instant classic," referring to it as one of the "fabulous lines from the second tier." On the May 15 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, former presidential adviser David Gergen said: "Mike Huckabee did get off the funniest line tonight, when he ... said Congress had been spending money like John Edwards at a beauty side shop, and it got the biggest laugh of the night. I mean, it was a clever line."
On the May 16 edition of MSNBC Live, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood, after viewing a clip of Huckabee's comment, praised him as "a better communicator than anybody else was on that stage last night."
From the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: And then there was a couple of humorous moments as well. John McCain trotted out again -- it's a pretty tried and true line for him, but it worked really well last night -- that Congress is spending like drunken sailors and, you know, I know a drunken sailor who said, I take offense at that. And then Mike Huckabee talking about spending as well and then tax cuts. He took a shot at John Edwards. Take a listen to this.
HUCKABEE [video clip]: We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop, and it's high time --
ROBERTS: Oh, yow!
VANDEHEI: That was good. It was great TV. It was great timing on Huckabee who, in both debates, I think, has been pretty smooth, pretty articulate, maybe can start to establish himself as a serious --
ROBERTS: Although I don't know that Huckabee should be making hair jokes.
VANDEHEI: I don't know if he should either, but it's great for that red meat audience. I mean, they love making fun of -- of sort of the masculinity of Democrats, and they love to take pokes at people -- Democrats who spend a lot of money. You know, they're elites, and that's what they want to -- that's the message they're trying to pound home.
ROBERTS: Well, if that's a sign of how these debates are going to go in the future, you know, I say more, more, more, because it was pretty interesting.
VANDEHEI: Absolutely.
From the May 15 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: David Gergen, what about that? I mean, do they have any shot? What needs to happen for any of them to be able to sort of break through? Is this just simply a money game and they don't have it?
GERGEN: I think it's very unlikely they're going to break through, and these debates don't give them much of an opportunity.
Mike Huckabee did get off the funniest line tonight, when he talked -- said Congress had been spending money like John Edwards at a beauty side shop, and it got the biggest laugh of the night. I mean, it was a clever line.
From the May 16 edition of MSNBC Live:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (anchor): The lightest moment of the night came at the expense, of course, of a Democrat, courtesy of Mike Huckabee. Let's take a look at that clip.
HUCKABEE [video clip]: We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop, and it's high time that we have a different kind of tax structure.
BRZEZINSKI: Clearly not an off-the-cuff remark, but it --
HARWOOD: Not at all, but I tell you, Mika, if you look pound-for-pound, Mike Huckabee is a better communicator than anybody else was on that stage last night. The question for him is whether he can, in effect, talk himself into this race. He hasn't been able to raise the money to be considered anywhere close to the top tier, but he had a solid record as governor of Arkansas and, in both of these debates, he has been very likeable and very effective on that stage.
Republicans eat up these demeaning comments like flies on horse poo.
Anohter Comment was the one Rudy made after Ron Pual made a very honest and accurate statement about 9/11 and the base just eats it up.
Why aren't more "conservatives" endorsing Ron Paul?
He seems like the real deal to me.
Huckabee just made that remark to get a rise out of the neocons, it was pandering pure and simple.
Kinda like these comments made on Faux:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/gibson-joke/#comments
Now I know where Andrew "dice" Clay went.
A funny sidenote on Ron Paul, read this:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25504_Ron_Paul_Supporters_Spamming_Our_Poll_Again&only
I rarely go to LGF but that was worth the visit.
Bruce, had to one up ya!
http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/mccain-telling-supporters-to-spam.html
To fair I hadn't even heard of the guy untitl the first GOP debate. I actually took the time to look at his voting record and see what he stands for. I actually think there is something there. Yes there may be some spammers but why aren't more people voting for the other guys?
Spam or not he speaks for most Americans in my opinion. I'm not saying I'd vote for him, but there is something there that I think is being ignored for the most part by most media outlets. He even came in second on Fox's own text message poll. I really don't think it's "all" spam and many "journalist" are dropping the ball on this one.
From the same site:
"Even if they weren’t doing this pathetic maneuver to artificially pump up Paul’s support, I’d very seriously consider removing him anyway, because I found his remarks last night about 9/11 insulting and dangerous, and highly offensive."
What's so insulting about the truth?
The truth can be insulting at times. But I'm guessing the guy that runs that site doesn't see Paul's comments as "the truth".
speaking of funny side notes check out this Mike Huckabee gem.
http://video.canadiancontent.net/16321139-talking-to-americans-capitol-building-is-an-igloo.html
Thanks for the pointer to that article about Paul's campaign, Bruce. I'll have to try and remember that URL so I can point to it the next time someone complains about how the Democratic party isn't inclusive. First, the article seems to misrepresent Paul's campaign tactic as cheating (by saying it's not cheating?) and then the commenting parties respond by calling Paul a "nut" and saying that he shouldn't be allowed in future debates and his name should be removed from the blog's poll.
My favorite is the comment about how the FoX news text message poll was "spammed." Um... it's not possible he just did well in that poll? And others? Of course, in such unscientific polls, "doing well" means that you've managed to get people to respond to the polls. So what's wrong with the way it was done?
Besides, I thought Republicans didn't give a crap about polls.
As an Indy, I sat at attention when Ron Paul was given the opportunity to speak. I think RP may be my 2008 choice for the primary as McCain was in 2000.
Hopefully Paul's politics will age a little more gracefully than McCain's have.
I don't think I'd vote for Paul, but I could live with him as president. I disagree with him on a few things, but he's honest and willing to speak the truth.
Oh come on, it was a funny line no matter who you support or don't support. And all this overprotection where Edwards is concerned, please, he is grown man who has put himself in the public spotlight....if he can't take the ribbing here, or his supporters get all bent out of shape - well, his skin needs a little thickening.
He should diffuse it and have a little fun with it - that would only ingratiate him to voters.....Not act all insulted.
You're right.
Edwards is sharp and has good people working for him. He'll make the most of this situaution.
Edwards should remind that great looking group of Repubs that he has great hair, looks prettier than them and can match them dollar for dollar. If he does, he'll get some Republicans to vote for him. If that is the standard they use to vote, he'll outclass them and may end-up on the R ticket.
I am not so sure Huckabee is as smart as MMFA is implying. I do not think he was using the disgusting Ann Coulter joke and tying it in to relate to the term "Beauty Shop". To be fair I think the headline is misleading. However the joke was stupid, not funny and as the rest of those sorry looking Republicans all they have to offer. They are the real joke.
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee quipped: "We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop," a reference to reports that Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) spent $800 of campaign money on two haircuts. (Edwards later said the expenditure from campaign funds had been a "mistake.")
Are you kidding?!? That joke was hilarious! Oh BTW did Edwards reimburse his campaign fund? Or would that be un-ethical to pay back the money you "mistakenly" spent?
The lame, corny joke sounded like it was lifted directly from a re-run of Hee-Haw. I'm sure Ma and Pa got a chuckle, though.
But I guess it's just me... "Republican humor" has always been an oxymoron in my book.
Wrong, that was funny.
But Edwards didn't go to a beauty shop, that's what makes the joke lame. And I mean lame as in 'not funny', not as in 'tasteless' or 'insulting'.
As exemplified by Fox Nothing Channel's 1/2 Hour News Hour, conservatives seem to have a really disabled and unsophisticated grasp on what constitutes comedy.
The Dems are every bit as subject to ribbing and satire, but the so-called conservative comedians constantly fail to cash in. I've seen Jon Stewart masterfully mock the Dems on TDS. SNL has done it, too.
The conservative bobbleheads really need to stick to what they're good at, divisive and hateful rhetoric, and leave comedy to the pros.
Hey Pete!
You left out Bill Maher. By the way the conservatives do not have a sense humor. If they did they would see how stupid they really are and die laughing.
You're right. My excuse is I don't have HBO.
If he didn't get his hair cut at a beauty shop, exactly what is the "Pink Sapphire"? Is that where the locals in New Hampshire go to get their crew cuts?
I think the "locals" in New Hampshire get 'butch' cuts not crew cuts.
Looks like you skipped this part of the post:
In his May 16 column,">[link to www.politico.com] Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon wrote of Huckabee's comment: "The audience loved it, but note that Huckabee said 'beauty shop' even though Edwards did not get his $400 haircuts at a beauty shop. (The barber came to him.) The use of 'beauty shop' therefore seemed to be a sexual dig, a somewhat more sly form of [right-wing pundit] Ann Coulter's calling Edwards a 'f****t' recently."
Well, that makes it even more funny!! Not only do we get a good laugh at a lawyer joke, we get a good laugh at a homo joke. Thanks mmfa, that's as good as the chest pictures we got recently while you were complaining about showing chest shots. Now we get good homo-lawyer jokes while they complain about improper jokes. I think mmfa just does this because they like the same things that conservatives do, they just frame it into the aspect that they despise it. LOL at mmfa for their sly hypocrisy.
I don't think the point was that he took a cheap shot at Edwards. I think it was the idea of the pundits salivating over a dig at the haircut episode instead of talking about real issues. (with another dig thrown in about the tax and spend Democrats, who now don't want to give Bush billions more for Iraq without some strings).
I think we have a winner! Yes. I think that was the main point of the article as well. Pretty depressing that our media sinks this low and apparently loves it.
This whole thing is stupid. Of all the substantive reasons to dislike the views of a candidate, the media often focuses on stories like this one or whether GWB violated protocol with the Queen. Who really cares about this crap?
I don't get it. He is using a Democrat to make a joke that the Republican controlled Congress created this massive spending. Is that the punchline?
George Bush has been the best Democratic president that they, the liberal spenders, could have ever hoped for.
Do you notice a whistling between your ears when the wind blows?
Yes I did....I wondered what that was, thanks for the help.
HaHa. That's sooo clever, Huck.
I guess you'll say anything to divert attention away from the fact that it's been a Republican congress flushing money down Iraq like an incontinent Paris Hilton.
But... But....
Olbermann used a Nazi Salute!
Olbermann is running for President?
oops, I forgot my "mannerism" HTML:
</sarcasm>
Wait till you hear the latest parody Limbaugh is playing...
"I'm A Woman" sung by John Edwards.
It's funny. I laughed.
Should I go stand in the corner for punishment?
Correction...
Song was actually:
I Am Woman [hear me roar]
Funny. Really!
The problem is with those that take this silliness seriously.......they stand there all shocked with their mouths open, pointing back crying foul and out of bounds. When in fact they could use it to their advantage, eat it up, have fun with it at their opponents expense. It absolutely diffuses any satire. I haven't seen Edwards react to this, maybe he is smart........it's just his supporters apparently, and this website.
Acting all offended only emboldens the Limbaughs to turn the sticking needle a little deeper.
Maybe there's a sense of duty to stand up for Edwards' metrosexuality, but I think Edwards should do it if he feels the need.
I'm not offended by the joke, just groaning in grief at the lameness of it.
No Tommy the real problem is that they're wasting national debate time to avoid talking about what the $ was really spent on and now they are wasting time in the media talking about this juvenile issue.
Why do you constantly defend the efforts by our media to dumb down the national discourse? Your "Ignore it and it will go away, turn it off if you don't like what you see" arguments are getting really old and boring.
I know. Well, this has to go down in history as the very first presidential debate where one of the participants strayed from the sober issues of the day to utter a quip to get a soundbite. Never has happened before..........oh dear, the dumbing down of the electorate has just begun.
Brace yourself.
Please tell us precisely what "sober issues of the day" were discussed at the Publican "debate."
Ron Paul telling the truth about a "sober issue of the day" was shouted down by a blatant Giuliani lie, and the Fox Noise crowd ate it up.
Look at that, excuse number 2, right on time.
1st - Just ignore it because it's not important. If you acknowledge or make an issue of the comment, it's your own fault as your keeping the issue alive.
2nd - It's always been this way so what are you complaining about.
Tommy some people are actually interested in trying to have our media focus on real issues and want to hold them accountable, you obviously are not and seem to be here to offer out excuses on their behalf.
You're just missing the point intentionally now, because it's been explained to you at once in this thread already. The issue isn't about anyone being mean to Edwards or whether or not Edwards got his feelings hurt; it's about the media propping up a silly joke as something that "will dominate the news coverage in the days ahead."
You can't keep pretending to not understand that.
What I am intentionally doing is dismissing your intrusive argumentativeness.....I am not interested in engaging your opinions.
Clear?
your intrusive argumentativeness.
For the committee's consideration, a post in the category of "total lack of self-awareness."
Or, at the least, "severe irony impairment."
What's clear (to everyone) is that you intend to continue intentionally misinterpreting and reframing issues in order to distract from the actual topics. In this case, you managed to get some of the braindead to echo your "It's just a joke" reframing of this topic, but since you've been called on it a few times now, you're understandably upset. And right on cue, so begin the personal attacks, the last resort of the desperate distracter. Next time you're going to ignore me, best just to ignore me.
".........so begin the personal attacks, the last resort of the desperate distractor"
"......... some of the braindead to echo.........."
(shrug)
Have a nice day
It's not his "opinions" you are ignoring.
It's the facts he presents, facts you cannot deny, that you are ignoring. That's been your pattern for the many months I have been reading this site.
When you get painted into a corner by your own comments, and someone clearly points them out to you, and you have no distractions, you simply stop commenting. You virtually never apologize for your mistaken interpretation (and I'm being generous here, because it is almost certainly not a mistaken impression but a purposeful misinterpretation in most cases), and never reassess another's post after you have been clearly told how flawed your initial interpretation was.
No, you're not "interested" because you can't answer him. Instead, you deflect his point by accusing him of being argumentative. Are you really saying that you haven't figured out that this site about the MEDIA? Seriously - it's right in the title and everything.
The "funny" thing is, Tommy claims that if we don't think it's funny, we should just ignore it. If we don't think it's appropriate, then change the channel, and pay it no mind.
But Tommy....?
If that's the best method, then WTF do you continually comment on things that you claim are unimportant? If you don't think that this is an issue that Media Matters should be discussing, then why are you not simply ignoring it?
Could it be that ignoring it doesn't work, and confronting things you think are inappropriate is okay?
If that's the case, then stop telling us to ignore stuff. If it's not the case, and we should ignore stuff, then you should begin to ignore that stuff too. If not, you're a hypocrite.
Oh, wait, you are a hypocrite. Never mind.
I doubt it was as funny as the Miss Piggy/Racquel Welch version ("Get her outta here!")
(I meant "I am Woman", not the beauty shop dig. The thread structure did not stay intact).
Here we have the 37th best healthcare system in the world and pay twice as much per capita for that system, a under-funded and crumbling educational system (the systems better than ours are public, not some free market fairy land nonsense), a failed wrong headed war that will cost over a TRILLION dollars and a freaking one liner about a hair cut is what these idiot elite reporters are going to talk about for days. Not what these candidates are going to do about actual ISSUES, no a joke about a haircut. Meet the new “he invented the internet” presidential moment, courtesy of the corporate pr industry. This is exactly what the corporations who own the media want. A debate and presidential election of one liners (cause one liners will pay for your healthcare right?) with no substance what so ever. The substance will cut down on corporate profits, so fluffy empty crap is the way to go, and the knuckle dragging right wingers just love it. The media told us that it would be great to have a beer with Bush in 2000, a perfect reason to vote for a person. How's that beer coming Republicans? Could you trade that in for some healthcare and a good paying job?
Excellent post.
Ditto!
We're number 37th!! Go America
Wow, you life must really suck. Me, I am living in paradise up here in Washington state, in the trees, on a mountian, with a view, I am sorry I have it all. And health care to, should I ever need it.
Good for you. What about the other forty million Americans without health care coverage?
Some of us don't want to live in trees, Tweak. We spent millions of years getting out of them.
Harmless joke. Must be a slow news day for MMFA.
Harmless and lame.
Here we have the 37th best healthcare system in the world and pay twice as much per capita for that system, a under-funded and crumbling educational system (the systems better than ours are public, not some free market fairy land nonsense), a failed wrong headed war that will cost over a TRILLION dollars and a freaking one liner about a hair cut is what these idiot elite reporters are going to talk about for days. Not what these candidates are going to do about actual ISSUES, no a joke about a haircut. Meet the new “he invented the internet” presidential moment, courtesy of the corporate pr industry. This is exactly what the corporations who own the media want. A debate and presidential election of one liners (cause one liners will pay for your healthcare right?) with no substance what so ever. The substance will cut down on corporate profits, so fluffy empty garbage is the way to go, and the knuckle dragging right wingers just love it. The media told us that it would be great to have a beer with Bush in 2000, a perfect reason to vote for a person. How's that beer coming Republicans? Could you trade that in for some healthcare and a good paying job?
I thought it was a little funny.
The real joke is that Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution. Now that's funny (funny strange, not funny ha-ha like his little jab at Edwards).
Maybe someone should say, "We've had a Congress that's spent money like Mike Huckabee at McDonald's".
Just a rib at Huckabee for being formerly obese and losing some weight. But hey, we're just joking right?
Actually that's funny Magnolia.
Maybe even funnier than Huck's quip.
How about spending money like Huckabee at a Jenny Craig meeting?
Ooh, even better.
I don't have a problem with the Huckster’s joke but If a Dem dared said anything remotely similar or made mention of the Huck's personal indulgences (over eating) they would get raked over the coals for stepping out of bounds. Evidently mean jokes are only allowed to come from the right.
Did anyone on any of these shows actually get around to discussing what each candidate stood for in terms of policy? That's the essence of this item. It's not a "slow news day" for MMFA, it's everything that's wrong with the pundocracy today.
The problem is these debates with all these candidates and the limited bumpersticker answers that this format allows. There is no real substance or policy details that can come from this, sadly. Not to mention, who is really paying attention with the first votes to be cast are months away?
These debates are more for cable news channels and their pundits to jockey candidates and banter politics back and forth......beyond that, meh.
You'd like us to ignore these debates, but we're paying attention and taking notes. These debates are extremely important, they are important well beyond the realms of cable news. The answers are canned but we do get glimpses at the differences amongst the candidates.
If someone has already made up their mind who they are going to support, well sure, these debates are meaningless. For me, I gained greater insight from the Dem debates into who I am likely to support, someone other than I initially thought, actually.
Also, these Republican debates are giving me a greater knowledge of the utterly suicidal foreign policy, the reckless domestic policy, the anti-science and anti-education stances of the candidates. Also the Repub debates have reinforced what I already knew about the reproductive rights orthodoxy required to get the nomination.
Oh yeah. This stuff matters.
The problem is these debates with all these candidates and the limited bumpersticker answers that this format allows.
Yes, but the subsequent "analysis" doesn't help much either.
Maybe Huckabee will get that big bump he's been looking for. The Colbert Bump didn't do the trick for him, but this dig at Edwards will do it.
This is sure to boost him from 1 % to 1.05 %.
Aside from the ad hominum attack, which just underlines the puerile, ignorant and just plain stupid nature of Republican rhetoric, who was Huck-a-chunk trying to nail with his comment about the Congress spending like Edwards?
The only Congress that I know of that's spent like a multi-billionaire on crack, is the recent Republican Congress. They're the ones who bent over forward and spread their/our "checkbooks" for The Decider and said, however much you want...it's yours, take it! No amount is too much. A hundred billion for an oil tanker filled with blood...no problemo!
But wait...you want a penny for a social program...NO WAY!!!
Another hundred billion to kill another 100,000 Iraqi's, NO PROBLEMO!!! Hey, they represent the "culture of life", so how could they say no to industrialized death that comes with massive profits?
Double-speak is not dead, it just smells funny!
The sick Republican bastards who started this surrealistically expensive, vicious steaming blood soaked meatball rolling have guaranteed that trillions will eventually be poured out in blood and treasure...and they're moralizing about John Edwards spending too much on a haircut?
It's just unreal, the infinite hubris and vastly shameless nature of these gollums. They'll never stop because they have no souls, or consciences, and are only capable of the pursuit of death and the power it represents. Culture of life...yahh, right.
Ulto, you are right.
There are times for light hearted comments but when we have as many problems in this country, kids dying in a war just to name one, it seems pretty lame to joke about haircuts cost. It's especially lame to do so when the party responsible for the problems is the party you are trying to represent. Usually when you've been the party in power for 6/12 years (junior and congress) you run on all the good thing that your party has accomplished but these guys have to go back to a guy that was President in 1980 and is dead.
Maybe one of these clowns will get smart and wear a Reaganesque Brown Suit to one of these debates. Now, there's a difference the Troglodytes will notice!
I always thought the same thing happened to Quail. It was a better line but the press ran with it as though it was the most important point from a debate. This wasnt even a very good joke really. It only plays to the choir. In many ways I think this started going downhill fast with Reagan. This sort of thing was the substance of those campaigns and most of us ate it up. Who is to blame? We have reduced politics to entertainment and almost all of us are complicit.
This joke was about 20 minutes into the debate, and I'm pretty sure it elicited the first audible reaction from the audience.Up to that point, the same mind-numbing platitudes about War and pretending to have a history of lower taxes.
I tuned in just before the "debates", as Sean Hannity finished up. Offering some strategy to the candidates as readily as he forces his feeble military insights onto actual veterans, Sean suggested that it might be a good night to refrain from arguing with each other, and to concentrate on warning America to keep Hillary out, and to hammer home the point that the Dems want to surrender in iraq.
Pretty funny, I thought, that a leading mouthpiece for the GOP was recommending they ignore discussing issues at a debate, and focus on slamming the other party, the one that wasn't present to offer rebuttals.
I guess Hannity was right. The biggest response came not from any point made by a Republican candidate about anything relevant, but from a lame, senseless joke about a man who wasn't in the debate.
Nice work.
"I always thought the same thing happened to Quail (sic)."
-----
Actually, what happened to Quayle was a stunning rebuff to his claim that he was the same age as JFK was when he ran for President, and that he should be taken just as seriously. Lloyd Bentsen, who was a personal friend of JFK, told Quayle the truth, succinctly, deftly, and cuttingly.
Quayle never was, isn't now, and never will be one-tenth the intellect that JFK was, and Bentsen knew it, and knew how to tell him so in a way the American public remembered.
Quayle's only response was, "That was uncalled for, Senator." He was wrong there, too. He called for it, and Bentsen brought it to him.
Yep, That haircut thing was dumb, John. Real dumb.
How dumb was it?
It was Huckabee-taking-a-loaded-gun-on-an-airplane dumb.
I still think it was a decent little jab at a potential opponent. A little good natured ribbing. Come on now. Have we all lost our senses of humor?
Hey doyoubelieveinmagic, megadittos. I fear I may have to start watching the "news" on the cheap Wal-Mart T.V. in the bedroom because I might put my foot through the flat plasma in the living room someday.
Magnolia, the joke itself is fine and harmless. The problem is the press treating it like it is a big story instead of, as usual, them focusing on actual issues that matter. There was a one liner that Ron Paul gave about the 1953 coup that put the Shah and his secret fascist police in power in Iran, along with the concept of "blowback", and how these types of actions have lead to attacks against the US. THAT is the type of "one liner" that would be top story if we had an actual press and functioning democracy, and not a pr industry dressed up in the press' clothing.
The "beauty shop" reference to me was an obvious reference to Edwards "gayness" and by association general "gayness" of all liberals/democrats. Why don't these puerile repubs just get it over with, get their rulers out and challenge each other to a dick measuring contest. The guy with the biggest dick is the most manly and thus most deserving of the republican nomination. Howard Stern can host the event. Then Rush can followup with a farting contest to determine the VP repub candidate.
MayorPoopenmyer, I'm with you. I read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" a few years ago and, man, was/is he on the mark. If the press is owned by multinational corporations, created to care about nothing but their bottom line, you can expect their "product" (information) to reflect their economic self interest, and it does. The press is neither "liberal" or "conservative", it corporatist and biased towards the elites who own it.
Leave it to the Republicans to start using sexual innuendo into the race. They know they don't have much a chance in the next election, so they are starting their usual personal insults and character assassination earlier than ever. It's hard to even imagine how for into the sewer they will sink with all the many more months remaining in this campaign.
Well, now, huckabee, that was mighty christian of ya.
The guys that call up C-SPAN on the Republican line at 5:30 in the morning to say they are a former milatary officer and the Dems are all yellowbellies are getting t-shirts and bumperstickers printed up right now. Sigh.
I'd like to comment more about this, but porn star Mary Carey is on Your World w/Neil Cavuto. See ya!
I saw this piece this morning. CNN often repeats the same thing periodically, so I am not sure which hour's broadcast this story mentioned. But I will add this: at the top of the 8:00 AM hour of American Morning with John Roberts and Kihran Chetry today, the VERY FIRST STORY, the very first clip aired, was this idiotic comment by Huckabee about Senator Edwards spending money in a beauty shop! Imagine, that is the top of the hour story leading all things happening in the World. Wow.
Also, no one mentioned that the term "beauty shop" is completely outdated, and hasn't been used for decades. Secondly, there is no evidence that Edwards has EVER been in a beauty parlor, except to pick up his wife after she has her hair done. Third, there is no and was no $400 haircut. That's a distortion. Even the Edwards people don't bother to defend themselves. The man charged $100 or $150 or whatever his regular price was, rich people often pay higher for services by select people, and then the man added HIS TRAVEL EXPENSES TO AND FROM THE LOCATION. The haircut itself was not $400.
Another point no one mentions is that BUSH HAS A BARBER ON CALL WHO GETS PAID A LOT MORE THAN $400 EVERY WEEK. Why don't the anti-Bush people look up what Bush's barber gets paid? And that's taxpayer money, Edwards paid for his haircut himself. Not one cent of taxpayer money was involved.
I fear that if Edwards gets the nomination, he will refuse to fight back, just like Kerry refused to fight back most of the time.
"The conservative bobbleheads really need to stick to what they're good at, divisive and hateful rhetoric, and leave comedy to the pros."
Bingo...!
You'd think all the GOP's outed closet cases in the past year would nullify the emasculation/feminization tactic...
Edwards is not likely to win his party's nomination, I think; Huckabee certainly won't. Giuliani's chances look better than either, and he carries more queer baggage than anyone else in the field---yet I have a hard time imagining a Democratic cnadidate pointing to him during a debate and blurting "No, YOU'RE a fag!" Is that what people mean by "liberal?"
Here's the best commentary on the issue I have seen:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22335