Wash. Post's Milbank compares Edwards' haircuts to undocumented workers at Romney's home while "he's complaining about illegal immigrants"
SUMMARY: On Countdown, Keith Olbermann asked Dana Milbank about the repeated references in The Washington Post to the cost of John Edwards' haircuts, including in his own column. Milbank replied that he is "guilty of the haircut slander" and added: "[T]he $400 dollar haircut speaks of that the same way Romney having the illegal immigrants twice return to work in his home even ... as he's complaining about illegal immigrants." While Milbank identified an inconsistency between Romney's actions and his stated views, he offered no justification for suggesting a similar inconsistency in Edwards' efforts to fight poverty while paying for expensive haircuts.
On the December 11 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann asked Washington Post national political reporter Dana Milbank about the repeated references in that day's edition of the Post to the cost of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' haircuts. Milbank replied that he is "guilty of the haircut slander." Milbank added: "But what we do in our business, in the shorthand way, is sort of have a phoniness meter out there, and the $400 dollar haircut speaks of that the same way Romney having the illegal immigrants twice return to work in his home even ... as he's complaining about illegal immigrants." Milbank did not explain how Edwards' haircuts are in any way analogous to Romney's reported use of a company that employs illegal immigrants. (The Boston Globe reported that Romney fired the landscaping company that the illegal immigrants worked for only after he was confronted with the issue for a second time.) While Milbank identified an inconsistency between Romney's actions and his stated views, he offered no justification for suggesting a similar inconsistency in Edwards' efforts to fight poverty while paying for expensive haircuts.
As Media Matters for America noted, on December 11, the Post published four pieces on Edwards, including one by Milbank, that each mentioned the cost or "expensive" nature of haircuts Edwards has received. Milbank quoted Edwards saying: "What America needs right now is America needs a fighter. ... Let me tell you why we need a fighter. There's a wall around Washington, and we need to take that wall down. The American people are on the outside, and on the other side -- on the inside -- are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy." Milbank then wrote: "Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut."
From the December 11 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: And do we -- to some degree, is this true: Do we in the media manufacture crises in politics or exaggerate things into crises for the hell of it? I mean, are we doing this with Senator [Hillary] Clinton [D-NY]? Here, [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] rolls out [talk-show host] Oprah [Winfrey] and everybody goes, "Ooh, Oprah!" And nobody says, "What the hell is Oprah doing telling people how to vote?" This polling suggests she might increase Obama's base by a percentage point, and in one poll, nationally, Clinton still leads him 44 to 27.
No offense on this, but is this like your paper noting that John Edwards' haircuts keep being brought up in the campaign, and then in all four articles on him in the Post today, your own included, each of you guys brought up his haircut?
MILBANK: Well, first, with Oprah, I'm a little skeptical of that. A Pew poll on the same subject found 60 percent of people thought that she would be beneficial.
OLBERMANN: All right, so it's somewhere between one and 60.
MILBANK: OK, well, 30 would be significant. But I think to the larger point -- and I am guilty of the haircut slander there -- I think we often go for shorthand. But what we do in our business, in the shorthand way, is sort of have a phoniness meter out there, and the $400 dollar haircut speaks of that the same way Romney having the illegal immigrants twice return to work in his home even as complaining -- as he's complaining about illegal immigrants. If you remember Sargent Shriver three decades ago going into the steelworkers' bar in Pittsburgh and ordering a Courvoisier. That's about all I remember about his campaign.
OLBERMANN: In 15 seconds, what is he [President Clinton] saying about Senator Clinton should only take Christmas Eve and Christmas Day off? What is he trying to do to her?
MILBANK: I don't know. He wants her to work a good bit harder. He wants her to try to build up that firewall in New Hampshire while he tries to keep them -- the others from running away with it in Iowa.
OLBERMANN: Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and MSNBC. Great thanks, Dana.
But...don't we all remember all those times that Edwards railed against expensive haircuts? There was that famous speech right after 9/11, when he took a stand against paying more than $10 for a trim. He's spent most of his political career demonizing others who have suits and ties, stay at hotels and have good barbers.
Mary, you beat me to it. Damn it all.
Gosh dern it, if great minds don't think alike :)
I'm glad MMFA caught this. I almost fell over when I heard Milbank make this ridicuous analogy on Olbermann-- to no rebuttal from K.
If Edwards had been decrying the spending of money-- like Romney decrying undocumented workers-- and then had gone out and bought himself a $400 haircut, the analogy would be appropriate.
But he's done no such thing. What was gauling was Milbank's complete confidence at this absurdity, claiming that this is what the press does best. Do these people know the definition of 'hypocrisy?' Do they get it?
Oh for Christ sakes, & IF Romney had questioned whether any ILLEGALS were working for the landscape company he hired, he'd be accused here by MMFA [and by Keith and the MSM] of profiling.
Edwards talks a good game about 2 Americas, then goes out & gives an example of the America he belongs to.
So I guess that means you don't understand the definition of hypocrisy either? A rich man who makes an effort to help the poor is not a hypocrite.
A rich man who actively campaigns on lower taxes for all, less spending from the government, and removing discriminatory barriers that may impede those who take a personal responsibility in their own financial success through hard work and proper moral choices; while appealing to one's pride, freedoms and the endless opportunites available in this country, are statesman and definitely not hypocrites.
A rich man who sprawls in his mansion and breezes through $400 haircuts with as much carelessness as the rest of us breeze through insignificant personal expenses, while pandering to voters through class warfare and income redistribution, is a hypocrite.
Hatred of taxes. Hatred of market regulation. These do not make one a populist, they do not address the true factors that keep people in poverty.
What you have described are the same pattern of conservative economics that have led us to the widest wealth gap we have ever had the displeasure to experience as Americans.
A rich man who
The world according to Tommy:
A rich man who says "I got mine and I'm keeping it; you're on your own," is a statesman. A rich man who says "Those who have the most have a duty to help those who have less" is a hypocrite.
Got it. And thank you; it puts everything else you say in a certain context.
If you are talking charities, you are absolutely correct. If you are talking government income redistribution, then that is incorrect.
That simply confirms the accuracy of my translation.
What's confirmed is you have very little faith in the giving and charitable nature of the people of this country, apparently - for you must feel the only way the poorest among us will get any help is for the government to swoop in and take one person's money and give it to someone else.
Sad, I believe in the goodness of Americans far more than you do, obviously.
I, too, believe in the goodness of Americans.
Especially that seventy-plus percent that are willing to take a tax increase so that all children in this country could have Health Insurance.
Hmmm? I have had plenty of tax increases in my lifetime, why do poor kids still not have health insurance then if that's what it takes?
You know what?
I agree!
We wouldn't need to raise a single penny in taxes if we cut a trillion out of the Pentagon's budget.
I believe in the goodness of Americans far more than you do
Your touching, albeit transparently self-interested, conviction would carry weight if it were not held in the face of literally hundreds of years of experience here and across the Western world of the overall impact on poverty achieved by the reliance on private charity.
But what are facts and experience to you? You've got a philosophy! You believe!
Tinkerbell thanks you.
Spot on Jeter. By posting this story Media Matters is either (1) ignorant, (2) clueless, (3) -too smart by half, or (4) foolish.
Regardless of which - this is another example of why they are not qualified to be the media watchdogs they desire to be.
It's spot on that Dana Milbank and the Washington Post are a bunch of hacks pandering the lowest common donominator. He even identifies his own mention of Edwards' expensive haircut as "slander" yet you take this as MMFA blowing smoke? It is conservative hypocrisy that drives the viewpoint that a rich Democrat is not allowed to live in a big house, fly a private jet, or, horror of horrors, get an expensive haircut!
Dana Milbank's comments also show how supremely lazy the media has been in reporting the 2008 races. This haircut story is what, 6-8 months old? Can't they come up with any new material?
Temper, temper. No need to be so threatened by the estimable Mr. Edwards.
IF Romney had questioned
He didn't and no one has complained about that and I agree it would have been wrong of him to have done so.
But as I understand the story (and I know that there are those here who will be more than happy to correct me if I've got it wrong), Romney continued to use the company even after he knew it employed undocumented workers. That makes the reference to a contradiction between "say" and "do" relevant.
I don't know. I've never heard Edwards rail on about how bad $400 haircuts are.
Just another so called journalist who doesn't understand what hypocrisy is for crying out loud, which is what he was trying to get at in his little jibe comparing Edwards with Romney and illegal immigration. That has been the most ignorant talking point I think to come out of this election thus far, that Edwards is some sort of hypocrite because he talks about eliminating the poor and the downtrodden and yet, he's rich.
It makes my teeth itch when supposed journalists keep trotting this out.
Dana Milbank is often sillier, but less entertaining, than Michael Musto. Surely Keith Olbermann could find someone more competent to provide commentary.
I'm confused... Did John Edwards pay an illegal immigrant to cut his hair? I could understand if it was his lawn, perhaps... but, jeez, not his hair!
Perhaps Romney has been the more prudent of the two by only allowing illegal immigrants to cut his lawn... but certainly not his hair.
However, I would like to know how much Romney has been paying to get his lawn cut. There are kids in my neighborhood who cut lawns for $20... $40 tops! Come clean, Mitt. How much are you paying to get your lawn cut?
Nope, you read it right Irony. I'm confused too. Price of haircut = hiring illegal immigrants - do I need a refresher course in math?
I never realized how goofy the Washington Post is until the past few weeks. If you get the MMFA emails you'll notice they're almost closing in on Faux News when it comes to stories that are total BS. I know they have a crack problem there, but the editors?
My god, I hope it's not the only daily newspaper in our Nations capital? Those poor people must be soooo confused.
I just want to be sure I understand the criticism of John Edwards expensive haircut. Are they claiming he's a phony because he's wealthy but fighting for the poor ? So are they saying you can't have money and be a champion of the underclass ? If his critics are going to say " You have to be poor to work for the poor" it shows a tremendous amount of ignorance and desperation if that's all they can come up with.
Here's another Milbank idiocy from the same session:
"MILBANK: Well, first, with Oprah, I'm a little skeptical of that. A Pew poll on the same subject found 60 percent of people thought that she would be beneficial."
Someone should remind M. that there's a big difference between thinking that Oprah might help Obama with other people, versus actually being influenced by her yourself.
That was what the first poll-- the much lower number-- was all about, whether her participation would influence their own vote.
Jeesh... This is what we're relying upon for 'journalists'? These people are getting paid way too much-- it's infected their reasoning processes.
Exactly! I thought same thing when I watched this interview.
Why are the support of policies that aid the underprivileged and personal financial success mutually exclusive?
What's wrong with the following mindset:
I worked hard (or was very clever or lucky!) and I made a lot of money. I have every right to spend that money however I wish, because I earned it. However, I recognize my obligation to contribute to the society that offered the market and infrastructure that enabled me to make all that money. I understand that I should return a reasonable portion of this vast pile of money I made within the framework of this great country I live in, so that others can have health care, safe streets, safe food and consumer products, and access to a first rate education, so that with this solid foundation of a healthy society, these poor and underprivileged people will be EMPOWERED to better themselves and find the place on the economic ladder that best suits all their talents and ambitions.
Furthermore, if they just stay poor they will be more likely to raise crime rates, and this will make me and my vast pile of money uncomfortable. Once they are able to raise themselves to the social stratum that best suits their abilities or desires, they will have some disposable income to spend however they wish, just as I enjoy. Hopefully some of this disposable income will go to purchasing/investing in whatever enterprise has made me my vast piles of money, so that I will have more customers and I can get richer, all while living in a safer, happier, more prosperous, more hopeful, more just society.
Wow. How stupid is this? See, the Republican problem with Edwards isn't that he's rich and spends his money foolishly...they're all for that. It's the fact that he has the audacity to criticize their Social Darwinist policies. Since you have to be filthy rich to get elected to national office in this country, I don' t see any hypocrisy here.
Yet one more manufactured controversy from the Media bobbleheads.
The public is ill served when the Mainstream Media pursues a lazy, herd mentality party line in talking about candidates. It undermines not only the exchange of ideas necessary to a democracy, but ironically their own standing in society. People believe less and less in the integrity of the MSM. For good reason if you follow the lazy thinking evident in Milbank's defense of himself. A short hand take on presidential candidates is another way of saying I don't take my job seriously.
Absolutely. While they bloviate endlessly about Presidential "horse race" minutiae, the endless corruption and scandals of the Bush Junta go largely unexamined. Kieth Olbermann and Chris Matthews mention them briefly, but everyone else seems not to care. Meanwhile, the troglodyte domination of Talk Radio continues, spewing 24/7 infomercials for the GOP. Compare this current indifference to presidential scandal to the nightly hyperventilation over Bill Clinton's blowjob in the 90s. Now...tell me again about that "liberal media bias". What unmitigated CRAP.
Actually, John Edwards' haircut shows that he is quite fiscally conservative when it comes to his haircuts, at least proportionately to his income. In fact, he is 10x more conservative with his haircuts than the average American.
John Edwards' net worth is estimated between $12 and $60 million, so for the purposes of this discussion, let's pin that at $36 million. A $400 haircut is, then, 0.00111% of his net worth.
The net worth of the average American family is $93100. So, if the average American is getting a $10 haircut, they are spending 0.0107411% of their net worth on their hair, or 10x as much as John Edwards, adjusted for one's means.
I think Dana is being total a jack ass. We should be focusing on issues rather than psychology of haircuts. I read his Washington Post column in which he tore into Edwards because Edwards was talking about economic divide in this country of haves and have-nots. Dana suggested in his column that Edwards had no right to talk about the economic divide, which Dana characterised as class warfare, since Edwards was a millionaire. I thought Dana was being an idiot in his assertions. The class warfare is being practiced on daily basis by the corporate print and tv media, including the Washington Post. Dana sought to shoot the messenger rather focusing on the merit of Edwards' argument.
Sure this is hypocrisy. Kind of like the hypocrisy of a perfectly healthy doctor showing concern for the sick.
This is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. You have to watch his show all of the time to understand it. This news hour is not for most. The news disseminated here is for Countdown viewers only. It is the news WE WANT TO HEAR! It is not for everybody.This is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. You have to watch his show all of the time to understand it. This news hour is not for most. The news disseminated here is for Countdown viewers only. It is the news WE WANT TO HEAR! It is not for everybody.
TextTrust's English web site spell check (free trial)
Spell check your web site:Email address for us to send sample report to:Sorry, that was weird!
What struck me about Milbank's comments was his breezy acknowledgment of the media actively trying to shape public opinion in line with reporters' own petty prejudices. They have, he says, a "phoniness meter" which they express through "shorthand." It's an example of what Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler calls "the script," the pattern which, once adopted by the media, determines the nature of all ensuing coverage.
In this case, these oh-so sophisticated reporters have decided, in line with such here as Tommy, that it's impossible for a rich man to be genuinely concerned about the poor and therefore Edwards by definition must be a phony - and they continuously repeat what Milbank himself admits is the "haircut slander" because it's "shorthand" for the story that the script has predetermined.
Related to that, in the same segment Olbermann and Milbank referred to the person in a robot costume who heckled Hillary Clinton, during which Milbank joked that the heckler was Dennis Kucinich, who figured it was the only way he could get some media attention. That is, the media actively ignores Kucinich and then Milbank makes jokes about the fact that Kucinich is being ignored - even as he is one of the very people who is actively ignoring him.
I'm sure someone here will explain how this proves both that the media are irredeemably lefitst and that MMFA would never criticize anything on Countdown. I await your erudition.
Great comments, thanks.