How Much for Harper's Make-Up?

[jdobbin]

MPs can take any number of courses on the taxpayer's tab. So can their staff. The only money that changes hands is between government procurement and the company providing the lessons, so Dion is taking English lessons on the taxpayer's tab, and no doubt Harper took French lessons on the taxpayer's tab.

Back to the original makeup thing. What a tempest in a teapot. So what? What's the next big whoopee scandal, "Taxpayer's Pay for Harper's Nailclippers!"?

Since Parliament is supposed to bilingual, it is probably a worthwhile investment for language lessons. I have no objections to either using taxpayers money for that.

Harper said he was against image make-overs. Pretty much nailed Preston Manning to the wall for it. It was no tempest for him back them. It was a big deal.

[ScottSA]

Harper was free to ask as Opposition leader back then.

Perhaps he didn't ask because he thought people would laugh at him if he tried to make an issue of such a piddling little issue. Or maybe he didn't because he didn't want to concentrate on the ant in the corner when there were so many free range Liberal elephants about.

This is a measure of the lack of issues to slam the Tories on, not a measure of the Tories. Every time someone trots out some insignificant thing like makeup, or some irrelevant thing like innuendo thrown at some minister because his sister's brother'd friend's cousin knew someone who worked for someone who knew yada yada...everyttime that happens it actually hurts the Libs, because it points to the lack of substantive dirt they can throw, and by extention it underscores the lack of substance in the Liberal Party itself.

[BC_chick]

I'm shocked.

Say it isn't so!

Harper has a hairstylist?

All kidding aside, I agree Dobbin, everyone seems to be either resorting to ad hominem attacks or whether or not Harper has the legal right to do this. Your point about him not disclosing the information when he used to speak out against these things seems to be pretty much uncontested.

[guyser]

It is a tempest in a teapot.

Except that Harper tore Manning a new one for doing it. That is the crux. Frankly, I still dont care one way or another. Now if she is paid a million bucks I might care, but she aint....and I dont.

[jdobbin]

I sincerely doubt that is true.

If it isn't, prove it.

[ScottSA]

I sincerely doubt that is true.

If it isn't, prove it.

The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. That would be you.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps he didn't ask because he thought people would laugh at him if he tried to make an issue of such a piddling little issue. Or maybe he didn't because he didn't want to concentrate on the ant in the corner when there were so many free range Liberal elephants about.

This is a measure of the lack of issues to slam the Tories on, not a measure of the Tories. Every time someone trots out some insignificant thing like makeup, or some irrelevant thing like innuendo thrown at some minister because his sister's brother'd friend's cousin knew someone who worked for someone who knew yada yada...everyttime that happens it actually hurts the Libs, because it points to the lack of substantive dirt they can throw, and by extention it underscores the lack of substance in the Liberal Party itself.

Harper didn't think it was a piddlin' act when Manning used party money to get clothing suitable for the job. Are you suggesting that Harper lacked substance for attacking Manning the way he did?

Defend Harper all you want but don't deny that he himself made this an issue and now he is embarrassed at being caught.

[guyser]

Perhaps he didn't ask because he thought people would laugh at him if he tried to make an issue of such a piddling little issue.

See... that is the issue at hand, it wasnt piddling when Manning did it.

This is a measure of the lack of issues to slam the Tories on, ......, because it points to the lack of substantive dirt they can throw, and by extention it underscores the lack of substance in the Liberal Party itself.

And that quite rightly is called spin.

[Michael Bluth]

The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. That would be you.

Now Scott. You have to understand that jdobbin knows and sees whatever he wants to. If he can't see it then it doesn't exist. Be leery of questioning his omnipotence. He really does know everything, ask him. If he claims Chretien and Martin didn't use government-paid stylists, that is the final answer. Even though he sometimes tries and weasel his way out of things.

[jdobbin]

The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. That would be you.

I've never claimed to know one way or the other. You said you doubted it.

We certainly *know* that Harper uses taxpayers to pay for styling.

[jdobbin]

All kidding aside, I agree Dobbin, everyone seems to be either resorting to ad hominem attacks or whether or not Harper has the legal right to do this. Your point about him not disclosing the information when he used to speak out against these things seems to be pretty much uncontested.

You can bet the very substantive Harper would have raked Chretien or Martin over the coals if they had stylist paid for by the taxpayers.

[guyser]

Now Scott. You have to understand that jdobbin knows and sees whatever he wants to. If he can't see it then it doesn't exist. Be leery of questioning his omnipotence. He really does know everything, ask him.

LOL....tee hee......LOL sheesh

Both of you are wrong. It was me who posted that the Star reporting that Martin and Chretien did not have a paid image consultant on staff. It was in the paper version and the cleaning staff cleaned out our lunchroom by the time I went to retrieve it.

Either way, by the morning someone will be able to refute or confirm.

Maybe we can giggle then....that would be fun.

[ScottSA]

The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. That would be you.

I've never claimed to know one way or the other. You said you doubted it.

We certainly *know* that Harper uses taxpayers to pay for styling.

You said something may be true. That's a positive claim. I said I doubt it is true. That's a negative claim. You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof should be on you.

Lets do it this way: I say you have ten legs, three heads and a goat grafted to the second toe on your right foot. You claim you don't. Who should have to prove his case, you or me?

[Michael Bluth]

Both of you are wrong. It was me who posted that the Star reporting that Martin and Chretien did not have a paid image consultant on staff. It was in the paper version and the cleaning staff cleaned out our lunchroom by the time I went to retrieve it.

I hear you.

Just questioning jdobbin's way of dealing with things.

Can't question him. He is an authority in his own mind.

[jdobbin]

You said something may be true. That's a positive claim. I said I doubt it is true. That's a negative claim. You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof should be on you.

Lets do it this way: I say you have ten legs, three heads and a goat grafted to the second toe on your right foot. You claim you don't. Who should have to prove his case, you or me?

I don't recall saying something may be true. In what instance? You were replying to someone else, no?

[ScottSA]

You said something may be true. That's a positive claim. I said I doubt it is true. That's a negative claim. You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof should be on you.

Lets do it this way: I say you have ten legs, three heads and a goat grafted to the second toe on your right foot. You claim you don't. Who should have to prove his case, you or me?

I don't recall saying something may be true. In what instance? You were replying to someone else, no?

Quite right. It was guyser. You however asked me to prove what guyser said was false, so you are him by proxy in this equation. Gawd, I sound like Meynard. Anyway, the burden of proof lies with guyser, not me.

[jdobbin]

Quite right. It was guyser. You however asked me to prove what guyser said was false, so you are him by proxy in this equation. Gawd, I sound like Meynard. Anyway, the burden of proof lies with guyser, not me.

I have no idea if what he said was true or not. I was looking for some evidence one way or the other.

I personally don't believe that taxpayer money should be used for personal make-overs. I'd be as critical if the Liberals had done it. I have no problems with the party picking up the tab if they deem it necessary.

[hiti]

Oh for the good old days..............

http://tinyurl.com/2czmtp

LOLOL

[Who's Doing What?]

Oh for the good old days..............

http://tinyurl.com/2czmtp

LOLOL

Ah, his good ol' Sheepshagger look.

[hiti]

I'd like him to comb his own hair. Or if he needs a stylist, have the party pay for it.

What about the stylist employed by Chretien and Martin?

Only employed when they were to appear on tv or in ads. Their wives did the job in between or maybe they just had the style and sense to buy clothes that fit properly and were ironed. And kept the weight off so they wouldn't have to wear over sized suites to hide the bulging belly.

[August1991]

This is a joke. The guy is the face of our Nation on the international scene. You want him winging it on his own?

He's not the face of the nation. He's just the PM. And yes, I think he should do it himself. If he needs help, his party should pick up the tab. As a minimum, he should have the intelligence to give the person another title.

Who does pay for that crap? When I'm paying damn near 30% of my income between sales and income taxes, I want to know where my money goes.

These "image" consultants must have also worked for other politicians, like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Who paid for them in those days?

If I wanted to vote for Paul Martin, I would have voted for him. Instead, I voted Tory - and I got Paul Martin. Is that your argument?

It turns out that taxpayers are picking up the tab for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's personal primper.

After two days of ducking media and opposition questions, the Conservatives finally revealed Wednesday that Michelle Muntean is on Harper's government staff.

But the revelation raises two more big questions: How much is she being paid? And why is there no government record of her employment.

Toronto Star

-----

It would be ironic that the first scandal of this government would come not from a loose cannon in the Conservative caucus but from the PMO. And make no mistake: this has all the makings of a defining scandal.

Clinton had to live down the story of Air Force One blocking LAX so he could get a haircut. And Bourassa Part II always had slightly messy hair to show that the coiffeur of Bourassa Part I was no longer around.

Like it or not, it's the little things that people latch on to. As you complete your income tax forms over the next few weeks, take a small moment to reflect on the possibility that your money paid the salary and travel costs of someone whose sole job is to ensure that Harper doesn't wear plaid.

[guyser]

This is a joke. The guy is the face of our Nation on the international scene. You want him winging it on his own?

Nope. I care neither that he has this woman on her staff to make his appearances better nor the amount of money she is paid . As for Harper being hypocritical , he might get guff for that one.

I want my PM to look good on the world stage and to project a professional image . I have seen what Harper wears and looks like and .....he needs as much help dressing as Chretien did with English.

What are they paying her...$30 $40 grand a year , including transport to and from Ottawa.

Sorry, cant get excited.

[Michael Bluth]

Nope. I care neither that he has this woman on her staff to make his appearances better nor the amount of money she is paid . As for Harper being hypocritical , he might get guff for that one.

I want my PM to look good on the world stage and to project a professional image . I have seen what Harper wears and looks like and .....he needs as much help dressing as Chretien did with English.

What are they paying her...$30 $40 grand a year , including transport to and from Ottawa.

Sorry, cant get excited.

Nobody has actually provided a quote of Harper complaining about Martin or Chretien using/not using a stylist. They have just said he "would have been" upset about it.

It's easy to call him a hypocrite for what you think he would have done. Not so easy to actually prove that he does it.

Your $30k or $40k figure is probably on the low side. If she is accompanying him on trips it is way, way, way on the low side.

[guyser]

Nobody has actually provided a quote of Harper complaining about Martin or Chretien using/not using a stylist. They have just said he "would have been" upset about it.

And I do not believe I said he was complaining.

It's easy to call him a hypocrite for what you think he would have done. Not so easy to actually prove that he does it.

The hypocrite part comes from him slagging Manning, and now does the same. Thats all.

Your $30k or $40k figure is probably on the low side. If she is accompanying him on trips it is way, way, way on the low side.

Think so? It is a parttime job for her.

[Michael Bluth]

The hypocrite part comes from him slagging Manning, and now does the same. Thats all.

Provide a quote of what he said about Manning.

Harper is paying for his own clothes, isn't he?

Think so? It is a parttime job for her.

If she's accompanying him on trips there are flight costs, accommodation, meals, etc. So yes, the money spent to have her on staff is probably much higher.