Ted must be being sarcastic, eh?

Nope.

Not long ago, presidential candidate John Edwards got roundly scolded by many for spending $400.00 for a haircut. This was wrong.

Edwards isn't your average guy, he's running for president of the United States. You and I could run too, but he's a serious candidate. He can't afford a bad haircut because that could (and probably would) destroy any chance he had of getting the Democrat nomination. People would look at him and snicker at the funny haircut, or, if he got it fixed somehow, would wonder why he got it cut so much shorter or made the extreme change. If he's been paying 400 bucks for a snip and is comfortable with the barber, then by all means he should stick with it. There's too much at stake to introduce a variable that could have such a drastic effect on his appearance, especially when he doesn't have to.

As for using campaign donations to pay for his haircuts, I'm trying to figure out why it's a bad thing. Is it the cost? Would there be a problem if it were a $50.00 haircut? People who donate to a campaign expect their candidate to do everything possible to win, and that includes looking good. Haircuts, healthy food, tailored suits, the whole package. So, not only should he keep getting the usual haircut, but if he cut costs during the campaign and goofed it with an unfortunate visit to Floyd, then as a doner I'd be one unhappy camper about it. Him paying out of his own pocket is fine, but I don't see the fuss with him using campaign funds to maintain appearances while he campaigns.

I don't like Edwards as a candidate. I don't much like anything of his positions on any issue (which all seem to involve me bending over so he can drive). But in this case, leave him be.

That's my .02, several weeks late.

Posted by: Ted at 08:07 PM | category: Politics
Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.